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

A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians’ communication of uncertainty

Background Health-care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no overview existed for health-care professionals on how to discuss uncertainty.Objective To generate an overview of available recommendations on how to communicate uncertainty with patients during clinical encounters.Search strategy A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched following the PRISMA-ScR statement. Independent screening by two researchers was performed of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full texts.Inclusion criteria Any (non-)empirical papers were included describing recommendations for any health-care provider on how to orally communicate uncertainty to patients.Data extraction Data on provided recommendations and their characteristics (eg, target group and strength of evidence base) were extracted. Recommendations were narratively synthesized into a comprehensible overview for clinical practice.Results Forty-seven publications were included. Recommendations were based on empirical findings in 23 publications. After narrative synthesis, 13 recommendations emerged pertaining to three overarching goals: (a) preparing for the discussion of uncertainty, (b) informing patients about uncertainty and (c) helping patients deal with uncertainty.Discussion and conclusions A variety of recommendations on how to orally communicate uncertainty are available, but most lack an evidence base. More substantial research is needed to assess the effects of the suggested communicative approaches. Until then, health-care providers may use our overview of communication strategies as a toolbox to optimize communication about uncertainty with patients.Patient or public contribution Results were presented to stakeholders (physicians) to check and improve their practical applicability.Analysis and support of clinical decision makin