Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:00:57.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sequential analysis of the phasing of the medical interview

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2011

Ludwien Meeuwesen
Ludwien Meeuwesen*
Affiliation:
Department of General Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
Address for correspondence: Associate Professor L. Meeuwesen, Utrecht University, FSS, Department of General Social Sciences, PO Box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht (The Netherlands). Fax: +31-30-253.4733. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Aims – To study an analytical approach towards sequential analysis of the medical interview. An interview phase constitutes the analytical unit. Generally accepted phases of the medical interview are 1) medical history, 2) physical examination and 3) the conclusion segment. While descriptive and prescriptive studies claim that the sequence of the phasing is standard, it is hypothesised that in natural medical conversation the sequencing of the interview is more complex. For the doctor, the sequencing pattern is a powerful device to structure the interview and to manage the interactions within a limited time span. For the patient, especially the conclusion segment will contain more self-selection than other segments. Key concepts are turn taking, topic shift, topic flow, conversational coherence and responsiveness. Methods – The data consisted of 800 verbatim transcript pages of 85 medical interviews obtained from general practice. Interplay of theoretical notions and data-driven observations produced a reliable analytical method described in the article. The method enables to study processes of (a)symmetry in medical communication and the ways to deal with problems of misunderstanding. Results – Results confirmed 1) the asymmetrical character of the interview, 2) the complexity of the phasing, and 3) the existence of several types of interviews. Conclusions – The method can be applied for a broad range of research questions.

Declaration of Interest: none.

Keywords

medical communicationsequential analysisconversational coherenceturn takingmiscommunicationasymmetry
Type
Sequence Analysis of Patient-Provider Interaction
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 12 , Special Issue 2: Sequence Analysis of Patient-Provider Interaction , June 2003 , pp. 124 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Drass, K.A. (1982). Negotiation and the structure of discourse in medical consultation. Sociology of Health and Illness 4, 320–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drew, P. & Sorjonen, M. (1997). Institutional dialogue. In Discourse as Social Interaction (ed. Dijk, T. van), pp. 92–118. Sage: London.Google Scholar
Grol, R. et al. (1981). Huisarts en Somatische Fixatie (General Practitioner and Somatic Fixation). Nijmeegs Universitair Huisartsen Instituut: Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Have, P. ten (1997). Een basisprocedure voor conversatie-analytisch onderzoek (A basic procedure for conversation-analytical research). In Sociale Interactie in Nederland (Social interaction in Tlie Netherlands) (ed. Meeuwesen, L. and Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.), pp. 15–42. ISOR: Utrecht.Google Scholar
Korsch, B.M., Gozzi, E.K. & Francis, V. (1968). Gaps in doctor-patient communication: I. Doctor-patient interaction and patient satisfaction. Pediatrics 42, 855–871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ley, P. (1988). Communicating with Patients: Improving Communication, Satisfaction and Compliance. Croom Helm: London.Google Scholar
Linell, P. & Luckmann, T. (1991). Asymmetries in dialogue: Some conceptual preliminaries. In Asymmetries in Dialogue (ed. Markova, I. and Foppa, K.), pp. 1–20. Harvester Wheatsheaf: Hemel Hempstead.Google Scholar
Meeuwesen, L. (1988). Spreekuur of Zwijguur: Somatische Fixatie en Sekse-Asymmetrie tijdens het Medisch Consult [Speaking or Being Silent: Somatic Fixation and Gender Asymmetry during the Medical Interview] (Dissertation). Nijmegen University: Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Meeuwesen, L., Schaap, C. & Staak, C.der, van (1991). Verbal analysis of doctor-patient communication. Social Science and Medicine 32, 1143–1150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ong, L., Haes J.C., de, Hoos, A.M. & Lammes, F.B. (1995). Doctorpatient communication: a review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine 40, 903–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roger, D. & Bull, P. (1989). Conversation: an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Multilingual Matters. Clevedon.Google Scholar
Roter, D.L. (1991). The Roter Method of Interaction Process Analysis: R1AS Manual. John Hopkins University: Baltimore.Google Scholar
Roter, D.L. & Hall, J.A. (1992). Doctors Talking with Patients, Patients Talking with Doctors. Auburn House: Westport.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. (ed.) (1996). Huisarts en Patiënt: Uitgangspunten en Richtlijnen [General Practitioner and Patient: Premises and Guidelines]. Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap: Utrecht.Google Scholar
Sackett, G.P. (1977). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction data. In Handbook of Infant Development (ed. Osofsky, J.D.). Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
Sacks, H.E., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, A. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turntaking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, J. (2000). Vaardig Communiceren in de Gezondheidszorg: Een Evidence Based Benadering [Communicating Effectively in Health Care: An Evidence Based Approach]. Lemma: Utrecht.Google Scholar
Stiles, W.B. (1992). Describing Talk: a Taxonomy of Verbal Response Modes. Sage: Newbury Park.Google Scholar
Stiles, W.B. (2002). Description versus evaluation of medical interviews. Epidemiologia e Psihiatria Sociale 11, 226–231.Google ScholarPubMed
Stiles, W.B., Putnam, S.M., Wolf, M.H. & Sherman, A.J. (1982). Verbal exchange structure of initial medical interviews. Health Psychology 1, 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tates, K. & Meeuwesen, L. (2000). “Let mum have her say”: turntaking in doctor-parent-child communication. Patient Education and Counseling 40, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tracy, K. (1985). Conversational coherence: a cognitive grounded rules approach. In Sequence and Patterns in Communicative Beliaviour (ed. Street, R.L. and Cappella, J.N.), pp. 30–49. Edward Arnold: London.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication. Norton: New York.Google Scholar
West, C. & Frankel, R.M. (1991). Miscommunication in medicine. In Miscommunication and Problematic Talk (ed. Coupland, N., Giles, H. and Wieman, J.M.), pp. 166–194. Sage: Newbury Park.Google Scholar
Wiemann, J.M. (1985). Interpersonal control and regulation in conversation. In Sequence and Pattern in Communicative Beliaviour (ed. Street, R.L. and Cappella, J.N.), pp. 85–102. Edward Arnold: London.Google Scholar