How communication affects prescription decisions in consultations for acute illness in children:a systematic review and meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND: Communication within primary care consultations for children with acute illness can be problematic for parents and clinicians, with potential misunderstandings contributing to over–prescription of antibiotics. This review aimed to synthesise the evidence in relation to communication and decision making in consultations for children with common acute illness. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SSCI, SIGLE, Dissertation Express and NHS economic evaluation databases was conducted. Studies of primary care settings in high income countries which made direct observations of consultations and reported qualitative data were included. Included studies were appraised using the process recommended by the Cochrane Qualitative Methods Group. Credibility was assessed as high for most studies but transferability was usually assessed low or unclear. Data were synthesised using a meta–ethnographic approach. RESULTS: Thirty–five papers and 2 theses reporting on 13 studies were included, 7 of these focussed on children with respiratory tract infections (RTI) and the remaining 6 included children with any presenting illness. Parent communication focussed on their concerns and information needs, whereas clinician communication focussed on diagnosis and treatment decisions. During information exchanges, parents often sought to justify the need for the consultation, while clinicians frequently used problem minimising language, resulting in parents and clinicians sometimes talking at cross–purposes. In the context of RTIs, a range of parent communication behaviours were interpreted by clinicians as indicating an expectation for antibiotics; however, most were ambiguous and could also be interpreted as raising concerns or requests for further information. The perceived expectation for antibiotics often changed clinician decision making into clinician–parent negotiation. CONCLUSIONS: Misunderstandings occurred due to parents and clinicians talking at cross purposes about the ‘seriousness’ of the illness and because parents’ expressions of concern or requests for additional information were sometimes perceived as a challenge to the clinicians’ diagnosis or treatment decision. This modifiable problem may be an important contribution to the unnecessary and unwanted prescribing of antibiotics. Primary care clinicians should be offered training to understand parent communication primarily as expressions of concern or attempts at understanding and always to check rather than infer parental expectations

Depression, Rational Identity and the Educational Imperative: Concordance-Finding in Tricky Diagnostic Moments

It is well-documented, within most medical and much health psychology, that many individuals find diagnoses of depression confusing or even objectionable. Within a corpus of research and practical clinical guidance dominated by the social-cognitive paradigm, the explanation for resistance to a depression diagnosis (or advice pertaining to it) within specific interactions is bordering on the canonical; patients misunderstand depression itself, often as an output of an associated social stigma that distorts public knowledge. The best way to overcome corollary resistance in situ is, logically thus, taken to be a clarification of the true (clinical) nature of depression. In this paper, exploring the diagnosis of depression in UK primary care contexts, the social-cognitive position embedded in contemporary medical reasoning around this matter is critically addressed. It is firstly highlighted how, even in a great deal of extant public health research, the link between an individual holding “correct” medical knowledge and being actively compliant with it is far from inevitable. Secondly, and with respect to concerns around direct communication in clinical contexts, a body of research emergent of Discursive Psychology and Conversation Analysis is explored so as to shed light on how non-cognitive concerns (not least those around the local interactional management of a patient’s social identity) that can inform the manner in which ostensibly “tricky” medical talk plays-out in practice, especially in cases where a mental illness is at stake. Finally, observations are drawn together in a formal Discursive Psychological analysis of a small but highly illustrative sample of three cases where a depression diagnosis is initially questioned or disputed by a patient in primary care but, following further in-consultation activity, concordance with the diagnosis is ultimately reached—a specific issue hitherto unaddressed in either DP or CA fields. These cases specifically reveal the coordinative attention of interlocutors to immediate concerns regarding how the patient might maintain a sense of being an everyday and rational witness to their own lives; indeed, the very act of challenging the diagnosis emerges as a means by which a patient can open up conversational space within the consultation to address such issues. While the veracity of the social-cognitive model is not deemed to be without foundation herein, it is concluded that attention to local interactional concerns might firstly be accorded, such that the practical social concerns and skills of practitioners and patients alike might not be overlooked in the endeavour to produce generally applicable theories