Communication practices for delivering health behaviour change conversations in primary care: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

Clinical guidelines exhort clinicians to encourage patients to improve their health behaviours. However, most offer little support on how to have these conversations in practice. Clinicians fear that health behaviour change talk will create interactional difficulties and discomfort for both clinician and patient. This review aims to identify how healthcare professionals can best communicate with patients about health behaviour change (HBC). Methods We included studies which used conversation analysis or discourse analysis to study recorded interactions between healthcare professionals and patients. We followed an aggregative thematic synthesis approach. This involved line-by-line coding of the results and discussion sections of included studies, and the inductive development and hierarchical grouping of descriptive themes. Top-level themes were organised to reflect their conversational positioning. Of the 17,562 studies identified through systematic searching, ten papers were included. Analysis resulted in 10 top-level descriptive themes grouped into three domains: initiating; carrying out; and closing health behaviour change talk. Of three methods of initiation, two facilitated further discussion, and one was associated with outright resistance. Of two methods of conducting behaviour change talk, one was associated with only minimal patient responses. One way of closing was identified, and patients did not seem to respond to this positively. Results demonstrated a series of specific conversational practices which clinicians use when talking about HBC, and how patients respond to these. Our results largely complemented clinical guidelines, providing further detail on how they can best be delivered in practice. However, one recommended practice - linking a patient’s health concerns and their health behaviours - was shown to receive variable responses and to often generate resistance displays. Conclusions Health behaviour change talk is smoothly initiated, conducted, and terminated by clinicians and this rarely causes interactional difficulty. However, initiating conversations by linking a person’s current health concern with their health behaviour can lead to resistance to advice, while other strategies such as capitalising on patient initiated discussions, or collaborating through question-answer sequences, may be well received

Additional file 1: of Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science: an exploratory study of women’s and men’s perceptions

Disaggregated demographic characteristics of study participants. Anonymised study participants by sex, race/ethnicity, staff category, and full professorial rank. (PDF 225 kb

What happens when patients say “no” to offers of referral for weight loss? - Results and recommendations from a conversation analysis of primary care interactions

ObjectiveGuidelines recommend that clinicians should offer patients with obesity referrals to weight management services. However, clinicians and patients worry that such conversations will generate friction, and the risk of this is greatest when patients say no. We examined how doctors actually respond to patient refusals, and how patients reacted to clinicians in turn.MethodsConversation analysis of 226 GP-patient interactions recorded during a clinical trial of weight management referrals in UK primary care.ResultsSome clinicians responded to refusals by delivering further information or offering referral again. These actions treated patient refusals as unwelcome, and acted to pursue acceptance instead. However, pursuit did not lead to acceptance. Rather, pursuing acceptance lengthened consultations and led to frustration, offence, or anger. Clinicians who accepted refusals and closed the consultation avoided friction and negative emotional displays.ConclusionPatient refusals have the potential to create negative consequences in the consultation and clinician responses were key in avoiding these. When clinicians acknowledged the legitimacy of patient refusals, negative consequences were avoided, and the conversation was briefer and smoother.Practice ImplicationsWhen patients refuse the offer of a free weight management referral, GPs should accept this refusal, rather than trying to persuade patients to accept.</div

GP-delivered brief weight loss interventions: a cohort study of patient responses and subsequent actions, using conversation analysis in UK primary care

Background Guidelines encourage GPs to make brief opportunistic interventions to support weight loss. However, GPs fear that starting these discussions will lead to lengthy consultations. Recognising that patients are committed to take action could allow GPs to shorten brief interventions. Aim To examine which patient responses indicated commitment to action, and the time saved if these had been recognised and the consultation closed sooner. Design and setting A mixed-method cohort study of UK primary care patients participating in a trial of opportunistic weight management interventions. Method Conversation analysis was applied to 226 consultation audiorecordings to identify types of responses from patients that indicated that an offer of referral to weight management was well received. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to examine associations between response types and likelihood of weight management programme attendance. Results Affirmative responses, for example ‘yes’, displayed no conversational evidence that the referral was well received and showed no association with attendance: ‘yes’ (OR 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 3.95, P = 0.97). However, ‘oh’-prefaced responses and marked positive responses, for example ‘lovely’, showed conversational evidence of enthusiasm and were associated with higher odds of commercial weight management service attendance. Recognising these could have saved doctors a mean of 31 seconds per consultation. Conclusion When doctors make brief opportunistic interventions that incorporate the offer of help, ‘oh’-prefaced or marked positive responses indicate enthusiastic acceptance of the offer and a higher likelihood of take-up. Recognising these responses and moving swiftly to facilitate patient action would shorten the brief intervention in many cases

An Overview of Self-Administered Health Literacy Instruments

<div><p>With the increasing recognition of health literacy as a worldwide research priority, the development and refinement of indices to measure the construct is an important area of inquiry. Furthermore, the proliferation of online resources and research means that there is a growing need for self-administered instruments. We undertook a systematic overview to identify all published self-administered health literacy assessment indices to report their content and considerations associated with their administration. A primary aim of this study was to assist those seeking to employ a self-reported health literacy index to select one that has been developed and validated for an appropriate context, as well as with desired administration characteristics. Systematic searches were carried out in four electronic databases, and studies were included if they reported the development and/or validation of a novel health literacy assessment measure. Data were systematically extracted on key characteristics of the instruments: breadth of construct (“generic” vs. “content- or context- specific” health literacy), whether it was an original instrument or a derivative, country of origin, administration characteristics, age of target population (adult vs. pediatric), and evidence for validity. 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. There were 27 original instruments (27/35; 77.1%) and 8 derivative instruments (8/35; 22.9%). 22 indices measured “general” health literacy (22/35; 62.9%) while the remainder measured condition- or context- specific health literacy (13/35; 37.1%). Most health literacy measures were developed in the United States (22/35; 62.9%), and about half had adequate face, content, and construct validity (16/35; 45.7%). Given the number of measures available for many specific conditions and contexts, and that several have acceptable validity, our findings suggest that the research agenda should shift towards the investigation and elaboration of health literacy as a construct itself, in order for research in health literacy measurement to progress.</p></div

Country of origin of measures.

<p>Country of origin of measures.</p

Talking delicately: Providing opportunistic weight loss advice to people living with obesity

Obesity is a major worldwide public health problem. Clinicians are asked to communicate public health messages, including encouraging and supporting weight loss, during consultations with patients living with obesity. However, research shows that talking about weight with patients rarely happens and both parties find it difficult to initiate. Current guidelines on how to have such conversations do not include evidence-based examples of what to say, when to say it and how to avoid causing offence (a key concern for clinicians). To address this gap, we examined 237 audio recorded consultations between clinicians and patients living with obesity in the UK in which weight was discussed opportunistically. Conversation analysis revealed that framing advice as depersonalised generic information was one strategy clinicians used when initiating discussions. This contrasted to clinicians who made advice clearly relevant and personalised to the patient by first appraising their weight. However not all personalised forms of advice worked equally well. Clinicians who spoke delicately when personalising the discussion avoided the types of patient resistance that we found when clinicians were less delicate. More delicate approaches included forecasting upcoming discussion of weight along with delicacy markers in talk (e.g. strategic use of hesitation). Our findings suggest that clinicians should not avoid talking about a patient's weight, but should speak delicately to help maintain good relationships with patients. The findings also demonstrate the need to examine communication practices to develop better and specific guidance for clinicians. Data are in British English.</p

Indications for general and content- or context- specific measures.

<p>Indications for general and content- or context- specific measures.</p

PRISMA Flow Diagram.

<p>PRISMA Flow Diagram.</p

Psychometrics of general and context- or content- specific indices.

<p>Psychometrics of general and context- or content- specific indices.</p