How general practitioners raise psychosocial concerns as a potential cause of medically unexplained symptoms: a conversation analysis.

Objective A common explanation for medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) relates patients' psychosocial concerns to their physical ailments. The present study used conversation analysis to examine how general practitioners (GPs) ascribe psychosocial causes to patients' unexplained symptoms during medical consultations. Method Our data consisted of 36 recorded consultations from Dutch general practice. Findings We found that GPs raise psychosocial concerns as a potential cause of MUS in 14 consultations, either captured in 1) history-taking questions, or 2) diagnostic explanations. Whereas questions invited patient ideas, explanations did not make relevant patient responses in adjacent turns and subordinated patients' knowledge in symptom experiences to the GP's medical expertise. By questioning patients whether their symptoms may have psychosocial causes GPs enabled symptom explanations to be constructed collaboratively. Furthermore, additional data exploration showed that GPs lay ground for psychosocial ascriptions by first introducing psychosocial concerns as a consequence rather than a cause of complaints. Such preliminary activities allowed GPs to initiate rather delicate psychosocial ascriptions later in the consultation

Coding linguistic elements in clinical interactions: a step-by-step guide for analyzing communication form.

Background The quality of communication between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients affects health outcomes. Different coding systems have been developed to unravel the interaction. Most schemes consist of predefined categories that quantify the content of communication (the what). Though the form (the how) of the interaction is equally important, protocols that systematically code variations in form are lacking. Patterns of form and how they may differ between groups therefore remain unnoticed. To fill this gap, we present CLECI, Coding Linguistic Elements in Clinical Interactions, a protocol for the development of a quantitative codebook analyzing communication form in medical interactions. Methods Analyzing with a CLECI codebook is a four-step process, i.e. preparation, codebook development, (double-)coding, and analysis and report. Core activities within these phases are research question formulation, data collection, selection of utterances, iterative deductive and inductive category refinement, reliability testing, coding, analysis, and reporting. Results and conclusion We present step-by-step instructions for a CLECI analysis and illustrate this process in a case study. We highlight theoretical and practical issues as well as the iterative codebook development which combines theory-based and data-driven coding. Theory-based codes assess how relevant linguistic elements occur in natural interactions, whereas codes derived from the data accommodate linguistic elements to real-life interactions and contribute to theory-building. This combined approach increases research validity, enhances theory, and adjusts to fit naturally occurring data. CLECI will facilitate the study of communication form in clinical interactions and other institutional settings

Linguistic and interactional aspects that characterize consultations about medically unexplained symptoms: a systematic review.

Objective The apparent absence of any specific underlying diseases challenges patient-provider communication about medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Previous research focused on general communication patterns in these interactions; however, an overview of more detailed interactional and linguistic aspects is lacking. This review aims to gain a detailed understanding of communicative challenges in MUS consultations by synthesizing evidence from conversation and discourse analytic research. Methods A systematic review of publications using eight databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, MLA International Bibliography, LLBA and Communication Abstracts). Search terms included ‘MUS’, ‘linguistics’ and ‘communication’. Additional studies were identified by contacting experts and searching bibliographies. We included linguistic and/or interactional analyses of natural patient-provider interactions about MUS. Two authors independently extracted the data, and quality appraisal was based on internal and external validity. Results We identified 18 publications that met the inclusion criteria. The linguistic and interactional features of MUS consultations pertained to three dimensions: 1) symptom recognition, 2) double trouble potential (i.e. patients and providers may have differing views on symptoms and differing knowledge domains), 3) negotiation and persuasion (in terms of acceptable explanations and subsequent psychological treatment). We describe the recurrent linguistic and interactional features of these interactions. Conclusions Despite the presence of a double trouble potential in MUS consultations, validation of symptoms and subtle persuasive conduct may facilitate agreement on illness models and subsequent (psychological) treatment