Justifying medication decisions in mental health care: Psychiatrists' accounts for treatment recommendations

Interprofessional meetings, organization, and interactive practices: the reflexive achievement of patient-centeredness

Interprofessional meetings are crucial for achieving patient-centeredness in healthcare. Exactly how patient-centeredness is reached during these meetings remains underexamined. Adopting an Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (hereafter EMCA) perspective, this contribution looks at video-recordings of interprofessional meetings in two distinct healthcare settings: rehabilitation and internal medicine. It aims to provide new insight into how investigations of patient-centeredness as a reflexive achievement allow us to better understand the organizational and relational efforts required to achieve it in practice. This contribution outlines how different healthcare contexts result in variety in the meeting frequency, duration, aims, participants, and agendas, which in turn means that the opportunities for patient-centeredness are not the same. But it also illustrates how patient-centeredness depends on the ways the various opportunities are seized and play out in the interprofessional interactions. It is therefore argued here that research on how patient-centeredness is reached in interprofessional meetings and the development of recommendations for enhancing it both require consideration of context-specific conditions and how participants adapt to and simultaneously modify them to achieve patient-centeredness in practice.

Recommending surgical or non-surgical treatments in medical consultations: The case in Chinese contexts

OBJECTIVES

This study examines the design and delivery of surgical and non-surgical treatment recommendations in China.

METHODS

We examined 936-minute recordings of medical consultations using conversation analysis. Data were collected from two tertiary hospitals in China. They are authentic interactions from the departments of orthopedics and proctology.

RESULTS

Non-surgical treatment recommendations are proposed after diagnoses delivery. They are delivered in straightforward and simple form, and as already determined. Surgical treatment recommendations are proposed early and sometimes occupy the diagnostic slot. They are delivered in straightforward, simple, but mitigated form. These recommendations are formulated as a matter that is not fully settled and requires further discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' stances toward specific treatments are made manifest in the tailoring of doctors' recommendations. The formulations of treatment recommendations exhibit doctors' understanding of what patients are anticipating or resisting. Chinese patients' preference for non-surgical treatments over surgery is reflected in how doctors present the recommendations for surgical and non-surgical treatments.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients' concerns vary depending on the treatments recommended. Doctors should incorporate these concerns into their medical advice. In China, for non-surgical patients, the focus is on clearly explaining the treatment plan. For surgical patients, doctors should first assist them in making informed treatment decisions.

Patients' and health professionals' perspectives regarding shared decision making in the psychiatric inpatient setting - A multiple qualitative case study

Objective

Shared decision-making is one promising approach to promoting recovery and person-centred care but seems challenging for implementation in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore how patients and health professionals experience shared decision-making and its facilitators and barriers.

Methods

A multiple qualitative case study design was chosen, using a constant comparative method. Multiple data sources were used, including individual interviews, observation, document analysis and a focus group.

Results

Through first a within-case analysis and then second a cross-case analysis, four patient profiles and their potential for shared decision-making were constructed. The results indicate that in the daily routine of the psychiatric inpatient setting different forms of decision making are used, even though health professionals advocate shared decision-making as the favored approach. Patients also have varying expectations and perceptions regarding shared decision-making, which is reflected in the degree of their involvement.

Conclusion

Shared decision-making could be enhanced in the future by a more proactive communication style and the proactive provision of information on the part of health professionals, in order to enhance patient participation in decision-making.

Innovation

The study identified different forms of decision-making within the acute psychiatric inpatient setting, highlighting the gap between the advocated SDM approach and its practical implementation. This divergence is a key aspect, as it underlines the complexity of implementing SDM in real clinical settings.

Childbirth as Fault Lines: Justifications in Physician-Patient Interactions About Postnatal Rehabilitation

Research on justifications has shown their significance in advice-giving, decision-making and children disputes. However, the majority of studies gloss over practical functions of justifications in patient-physician interactions as they are often expected and pursued by patients and in turn, are adopted by physicians to support their stance and authority. This study, through conversation analysis (CA), aims to explore a) what are pragmatic functions of justifications in patient-physician interaction? b) how and when do physicians unfold their justifications for treatment recommendations? c) how do physicians deal with different responses based on their epistemic and deontic domains?. A total of 32 video-recordings between postpartum women and physicians are collected and studied. Four pragmatic functions of justifications drawn upon by physicians are explored: justifications as face-saving, reassurance, risk discussion and clarification-seeking. Despite physicians' attempts to justify their positions as less challenged by patients, this is not the entire picture as they demonstrate their desire to resolve patients' concerns and coordinate their viewpoints to achieve the best practice that facilitates patients' well-being.

Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care

Although shared decision making (SDM) has become the most preferable way in doctor-patient communication, it is not fully implemented in mental health care likely due to the complex nature of psychiatric syndromes and treatments. In this review we provide a systematic overview of all perceived and reported barriers to SDM in the literature, acknowledging field-specific challenges, and offering perspectives to promote its wider use. We conducted a systematic search of the wider literature in different databases and included all publications mentioning specified barriers to SDM in psychiatric care. Relevant data and opinions were categorised into micro-, meso- and macro-level themes and put into clinical perspective. We derived 20 barriers to SDM from 100 studies and reports. Eight were on micro-level care delivery, seven involved meso-level issues, five concerned macro-level themes. The multitude of perceived and actual barriers to SDM underline the challenges its implementation poses in mental health care, some of which can be resolved while others are inherent to the nature of the care, with its long-term relationships, complex dynamics, and social consequences, all requiring a flexible approach. We present four perspectives to help change views on the potential of SDM in mental health care.

Discussing physical restrictions in care plan meetings between family members of residents with dementia and nursing home staff

In long-term dementia care, caregivers face a dilemma. On the one hand, they need to respect the residents' right to self-determination, but on the other hand, they sometimes rely on physical restraints to deal with potential violence and self-destructive behavior. The issue of self determination is further complicated by residents often depending on family members as advocates in decision-making. In this article, we examine 15 care plan meetings to identify the professional practices of discussing the physical restrictions posed to residents with severe dementia. Our method is conversation analysis. Our analysis demonstrates that staff members' practices involve informing, accounting, and agreeing on the goals rather than on the methods of physical restraining. Staff members tend to first inform family members about the principles of restraining and then account for the use of restraints. Accounts highlight the problems that can be avoided and the benefits that can be achieved by limiting residents' actions. Consequently, the family members' role in the discussion is to accept the decision that has already been approved by authorities. As the staff members highlight the aim of protecting the well-being of the resident, the family members tend to respond with overt agreement and even promote the use of restraints. Current negotiation practices provide insufficient opportunities for family members to advocate for residents. Therefore, we recommend involving family members in decision-making about restraining at an earlier stage, adjusting the protocol in care plan meetings, and engaging the family in minimizing and preventing restraints. In general, staff members should pay more attention to the residents' experiences and the family members' lifeworld knowledge of the residents.

Treatment decision making in psychiatry: Formulating patients’ perspectives in outpatient psychiatric consultations

Seeking and understanding patients’ values and preferences is one of the essential elements in shared decision making, which is associated with treatment adherence in psychiatry. However, negotiating treatment in psychiatric contexts can be challenging with patients whose ability to evaluate treatment recommendations rationally may be impaired. This article attempts to examine a conversational practice that psychiatrists use to deal with patients’ views and perspectives by formulating what the patients have said related to treatment. Taking the naturally occurring, face-to-face outpatient psychiatric consultations as the data, the present study uses conversation analysis (CA) as a method to demonstrate in a fine-grained detail what functions formulations of patients’ perspectives serve in psychiatric contexts. We found that by eliciting patients’ views and perspectives toward treatment, this type of formulation is not only used to achieve mutual understanding and establish the grounds for treatment decisions, but may also be used to challenge the legitimacy of patients’ position, steering treatment decision to the direction preferred by the psychiatrists. We argue that in the process of treatment decision making, psychiatrists do not simply impose their perspectives upon the patients, instead, they attempt to achieve consensus with patients by balancing their institutional authority and orientation to the patients’ perspectives. Data are in Chinese with English translation.

Loneliness in the presence of others: A mixed-method study of social networks of caregivers of patients with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

One in four families has at least one member with a mental disorder and families are the main caregivers in most patients in low and middle-income countries. Caregivers experience disruption in their routine lives, increased responsibilities, increased need for support, and changes in their network. The role of personal support networks in the health and burden of the caregivers is complex and depends on the context, cultural and socioeconomical variables. In this study, we aimed to investigate the personal support network of caregivers of patients with severe mental illness in Iran.

METHODS

By using a mixed-methods design, we focused on the structure and composition of caregiver networks, as well as self-perceived caregiver support.

RESULTS

We found that the support network of caregivers was mostly composed of immediate family members whom themselves were selectively chosen as a result of the multidimensional process of interaction between stigma, availability, and the perceived needs of caregivers. The participants mentioned economic and instrumental supports more frequently than emotional support, probably reflecting their unmet basic needs. Advocacy for providing formal systemic supports to caregivers, as well as interventions that expand caregivers personal support network is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Most participants of the study were relatively isolated and had a small network of support, mostly composed of immediate family members. Stigma was a serious source of family distress for caregivers and a limiting factor in social relationships.

The Basic Science of Patient-Physician Communication: A Critical Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Strong verbal communication skills are essential for physicians. Despite a wealth of medical education research exploring communication skills training, learners struggle to become strong communicators. Integrating basic science into the curriculum provides students with conceptual knowledge that improves learning outcomes and facilitates the development of adaptive expertise, but the conceptual knowledge, or "basic science," of patient-provider communication is currently unknown. This review sought to address that gap and identify conceptual knowledge that would support improved communication skills training for medical trainees.

METHOD

Combining the search methodology of Arksey and O'Malley with a critical analytical lens, the authors conducted a critical scoping review of literature in linguistics, cognitive psychology, and communications to determine: what is known about verbal communication at the level of word choice in physician-patient interactions? Studies were independently screened by 3 researchers during 2 rounds of review. Data extraction focused on theoretical contributions associated with language use and variation. Analysis linked patterns of language use to broader theoretical constructs across disciplines.

RESULTS

The initial search returned 15,851 unique studies, and 271 studies were included in the review. The dominant conceptual groupings reflected in the results were: (1) clear and explicit language, (2) patient participation and activation, (3) negotiating epistemic knowledge, (4) affiliative language and emotional bonds, (5) role and identity, and (6) managing transactional and relational goals.

CONCLUSIONS

This in-depth exploration supports and contextualizes theory-driven research of physician-patient communication. The findings may be used to support future communications research in this field and educational innovations based on a solid theoretical foundation.

Discussing mental health difficulties in a "diagnosis free zone"

Being identified as "mentally ill" is a complicated social process that may be stigmatizing and socially problematic, as a mental illness diagnosis determines the criteria for what is considered normal. This has given rise to a number of anti-stigma campaigns designed to create awareness of the way stigmas affect people with mental health difficulties and to normalize those difficulties in society. One such campaign is the "diagnosis-free zone", which declares that those with mental health difficulties should not be categorized on the basis of their diagnosis; rather, they should be encountered as full individuals. In this paper, we investigate how mental health difficulties are discussed in Clubhouse communities, which adhere to the "diagnosis free zone" programme. The findings are based on conversation analysis of 29 video-recorded rehabilitation group meetings, in one Finnish Clubhouse, intended to advance clients' return to the labour market. The analysis demonstrated that members referred to their mental health difficulties to explain the misfortunes in their lives, especially interruptions and stoppages in their careers. By contrast, staff members disattended members' explanations and normalized their situations as typical of all humans and thus unrelated to their mental health difficulties as such. In this way, the discussion of mental health difficulties at the Clubhouse meetings was implicitly discouraged. We propose that the standards of normality expected of a person not suffering from a mental health difficulty may well be different from the expectations levelled at participants with a history of mental problems. Therefore, instead of considering cultural expectations of normality to be a unified domain, effective anti-stigma work might sometimes benefit from referring to mental-health diagnoses as a means of explicitly tailoring expectations of normality.

Clinicians' experiences on patients' demands and shared decision making in Finnish specialized mental health care

PURPOSE

Psychiatric patients' awareness of treatments options and their possibilities to influence their care has increased. For the clinicians, the management of evidence-based care, as well as organizational and resource aspects, set different goals for the clinical encounter. In this article we are focusing on the clinicians' experiences and ask: How do the clinicians view situations in which there is a conflict between patients' individual needs and goals and other aspects in decision-making?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We implemented a qualitative study of 13 thematic semi-structured interviews with clinicians working in psychiatry. We used discourse analysis to investigate how the clinician view the doctor-patient interaction.

RESULTS

We identified three discources which were termed the medical standpoint, the psychodynamic standpoint and the standpoint of the patient's experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In their talk, the clinicians use the three discources to make sense of the diverse expectations from both the patient and the mental health care system. The three discources also reflect different aspects in psychiatric treatment cultures, such as evidence-based medicine, the ideal of patient-centeredness, therapeutic interaction and organizational requirements.

‘I’m Not Going to Tell You Cos You Need to Think About This’: a Conversation Analysis Study of Managing Advice Resistance and Supporting Autonomy in Undergraduate Supervision

This article, firstly, critically analyses a face-to-face supervision meeting between an undergraduate and a supervisor, exploring how the supervisor handles the twin strategies of fostering autonomy while managing resistance to advice. Conversation analysis is used as both a theory and a method, with a focus on the use of accounts to support or resist advice. The main contribution is the demonstration of how both the supervisor and the student are jointly responsible for the negotiation of advice, which is recycled and calibrated in response to the student’s resistance. The supervisor defuses complaints by normalising them, and moving his student on to practical solutions, often with humour. He lists his student’s achievements as the foundation on which she can assert agency and build the actions he recommends. Supervisor-student relationships are investigated through the lens of the affective dimensions of learning, to explore how caring or empathy may serve to reduce resistance and make advice more palatable. By juxtaposing physically present supervision with digitally mediated encounters, while acknowledging their mutual entanglement, the postdigital debate is furthered. In the context of Covid-19, and rapid decisions by universities to bring in digital platforms to capture student-teacher interactions, the analysis presented is in itself an act of resistance against the technical control systems of the academy and algorithmic capitalism.

Assessment of shared decision-making in community mental health care: Validation of the CollaboRATE

Background/Objective

CollaboRATE is a 3-item self-report measure of the patient experience of shared decision-making (SDM) process. The objective of this study is to assess the psychometric properties of CollaboRATE in community mental health care.

Method

A cross-sectional study was conducted at a Community Mental Health Center of the Canary Islands Health Service. Two hundred and fifty consecutive psychiatric outpatients were invited to participate. Of those, 191 accepted (76.40% of response rate) and completed the CollaboRATE, the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), and a form with sociodemographic and clinical variables.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis ratified the unidimensionality of the measure. High internal consistency was found (α Cronbach = .95, Guttman's λ = .93, and ω = .95). Strong positive correlations (p < .0001) were found between the CollaboRATE and the CPS. Only 39.80% of respondents gave the best possible score on CollaboRATE.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the CollaboRATE as a measure of SDM. The measure is quick to complete and feasible for use in outpatient mental health care. At present, a significative number of psychiatric outpatients are not involved in SDM. The use of this measure in psychiatric routine care can be a key tool in assessing and implementing SDM.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on shared decision-making regarding treatment decisions for depression, anxiety disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder in specialized psychiatric care

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

People worldwide are affected by psychiatric disorders that lack a "best" treatment option. The role of shared decision-making (SDM) in psychiatric care seems evident, yet remains limited. Research on SDM in specialized mental health is scarce, concentrating on patients with depressive disorder or psychiatric disorders in general and less on patients with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Furthermore, recent research concentrates on the evaluation of interventions to promote and measure SDM rather than on the feasibility of SDM in routine practice. This study investigated patients' and clinicians' perspectives on SDM to treat depression, anxiety disorders, and OCD as to better understand SDM in specialized psychiatric care and its challenges in clinical practice.

METHODS

Transcripts of eight focus groups with 17 outpatients and 33 clinicians were coded, and SDM-related codes were analysed using thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Motivators, responsibilities, and preconditions regarding SDM were defined. Patients thought SDM should be common practice given the autonomy they have over their own bodies and felt responsible for their treatments. Clinicians value SDM for obtaining patients' consent, promoting treatment adherence, and establishing a good patient-clinician relationship. Patients and clinicians thought clinicians assumed the most responsibility regarding the initiation and achievement of SDM in clinical practice. According to clinicians, preconditions were often not met, were influenced by illness severity, and formed important barriers (eg, patient's decision-making capacity, treatment availability, and clinicians' preferences), leading to paternalistic decision-making. Patients recognized these difficulties, but felt none of these preclude the implementation of SDM. Personalized information and more consultation time could facilitate SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and clinicians in specialized psychiatric care value SDM, but adapting it to daily practice remains challenging. Clinicians are vital to the implementation of SDM and should become versed in how to involve patients in the decision-making process, even when this is difficult.

It Does Take Two to Tango: An Applied Conversation Analysis of Interactions between a Psychiatrist and Service-Users Discussing Medication

Decisions concerning psychiatric medication are complex and often involve a protracted process of trial and error. We examine three recorded meetings for power-sharing and power-taking discourse strategies employed by both the psychiatrist and mental health service-user, when discussing psychiatric medication. We identify examples of good practice, as well as missed opportunities to engage service-users in co-constructed dialogue, and highlight that participation and active involvement in decisions is not best seen as a fixed pattern, but is a complex interplay that changes both between and within interactions.

Treatment Recommendations in Oncology Visits: Implications for Patient Agency and Physician Authority

Although oncology is a major site for clinician‒patient treatment negotiation requiring a careful balance of potentially competing viewpoints, little is known about how clinicians promote their treatment recommendations to patients and what the manner of promotion tells us about the oncologist‒patient relationship. Utilizing an already-established schema of coding treatment recommendations, I draw on 61 treatment recommendations to examine treatment decision-making in oncology. This paper investigates how physicians balance asserting their authority while at the same time attending to patient agency and involvement in decision-making. Taking this one step further, this paper explores how physicians negotiate decision-making with patients given that they occupy a liminal state between obligations to policy imperatives and commitments to their professional knowledge and technical expertise. How do they do this, and what accounts for this? To answer these questions, this paper analyzes the ways in which physicians present treatment recommendations and the treatment contexts in which they are made.

Unravelling subjectivity, embodied experience and (taking) psychotropic medication

This paper explores how distinctions between ‘intended’ and ‘side’ effects are troubled in personal narratives of taking psychotropic medications. Grounded in interviews with 29 participants diagnosed with mental illness in Victoria, Australia between February and December 2014, we consider how people interpret pharmaceutical compounds beyond their desired or intended effects, and how such effects shape and transform subjectivity and their relationship with their bodies. This paper contributes to recent discussions of mental illness and medication effects, informed by feminist science studies. It emphasises the co-constitution of social, affective and material relations in the context of ‘taking’ psychotropic medication. This paper discusses three key themes as important to the phenomenology of the nexus of illness and psychotropic medication: movement, ambivalence, and sociality. Our analysis demonstrates how psychotropic drugs are productive of subjectivity through their promises and potential, their unexpected harms and the institutions from which they are inseparable.

•

Analyses accounts of mental illness using feminist science and technology studies.

•

Focus on experiences of taking psychotropic drugs and impact on subjectivity.

•

Moves beyond distinctions between ‘therapeutic’ and ‘side’ effects of drugs.

•

Unique contribution to understandings of experiences of taking psychotropic drugs.

How clients solicit medication changes in psychiatry

In psychiatry, practitioners are encouraged to adopt a patient-centred approach that emphasises shared decision-making. In this article, we investigate how clients with severe mental illnesses (e.g. schizophrenia) advocate for their treatment preferences in psychiatric consultations. The study uses Conversation Analysis to examine audio-recorded medication check appointments in a comprehensive treatment programme known as assertive community treatment (ACT). The analysis shows that clients solicit medication changes at activity boundaries and design them in one of the following ways: reporting a physical problem; reporting a medication problem; explicitly requesting a medication change; and demanding a change. These formats put pressure on the psychiatrist to respond by either offering a solution to the client's problem or by accepting or rejecting the client's request. Through a detailed analysis of clients' communicative behaviours, we show that, in soliciting a medication change, clients ordinarily respect boundaries of medical authority and present themselves as 'good' patients who are reliable witnesses of their own experiences. Overall, the paper advances our understanding of patient advocacy in psychiatry and mental health interactions more generally.

'Breast cancer won't kill ya in the breast': Broaching a rationale for chemotherapy during the surgical consultation for early-stage breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine how, and for what interactional purpose, a surgeon raises the risk of death with an early-stage breast cancer patient.

METHOD

Single-case analysis of a recorded surgical consultation, using conversation analysis.

RESULTS

The surgeon not only negotiates the surgical treatment decision with the patient, she provides an overview of what her non-surgical treatment is likely to entail. Analysis reveals how the surgeon addresses interactional challenges when providing this overview, including how to broach the rationale for administering chemotherapy, the possibility that cancer could spread to vital organs and prove fatal. To do this, the surgeon orients to the possibility that the patient has misconceptions about her risk of dying from breast cancer. She uses negatively-formulated assertions to invoke these possible misconceptions, making correction relevant and providing a point of entry into delicate interactional territory.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon draws upon possible patient misconceptions to broach the rationale for administering adjuvant chemotherapy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The surgical consultation is typically the first treatment-related consultation newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients have and represents an opportunity to educate patients and prepare them for future treatment decisions. The challenges of providing and receiving such overviews, and how they may influence future treatment decisions, merit consideration.

How Psychiatrists Recommend Treatment and Its Relationship with Patient Uptake

Consultations for patients with chronic mental health conditions are conceived as meetings of experts: medical and experiential, respectively. Treatment decisions, in these terms, become a joint responsibility rather than handed down ex-cathedra. One resource for constituting decisions as 'shared' is the treatment recommendation - decisional authority can be invoked through its design. There is concern that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are infrequently involved in treatment decisions. However, the methods psychiatrists actually employ remain undefined. This article advances our understanding of psychiatric practice by mapping alternative methods used by psychiatrists to recommend treatment in outpatient consultations in situ. First, we unpack the types of treatments psychiatrists recommend. Then, we ask how psychiatrists recommend treatment? Applying a novel coding taxonomy, informed by the conversation analytic principle that recommendations represent different social actions, we identify the distribution of alternative formulations for psychiatrists' recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, and offers). We also propose one linguistic dimension, personal pronouns, on which recommending actions often depend, implicative for who is projected as 'accountable' for the decision. Finally, we examine the relationship between action type and patient uptake: is a particular type of recommendation more likely to attract acceptance/resistance from patients? And how does this relate to decisional accountability?

Treatment Recommendations as Actions

From the earliest studies of doctor-patient interaction (Byrne & Long, 1976), it has been recognized that treatment recommendations may be expressed in more or less authoritative ways, based on their design and delivery. There are clear differences between I'm going to start you on X and We can give you X to try and Would you like me to give you X? Yet little is known about this variation, its contexts, or its consequences. In this paper, we develop a basic taxonomy of treatment recommendations in primary care as a first step toward a more comprehensive investigation. We take as our point of departure the observation that treatment recommendations such as those above represent not only different formulations but also different social actions. We distinguish five main treatment recommendation actions: pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, and assertions. We ask: what are the main dimensions on which these recommendations vary and to what end? And what sorts of factors shape a clinician's use of one action type over another with respect to recommending a medication in the primary care context?

Evaluating nuanced practices for initiating decision-making in neurology clinics: a mixed-methods study

Background

We report follow-on research from our previous qualitative analysis of how neurologists offer patients choice in practice. This focus reflects the NHS’s emphasis on ‘patient choice’ and the lack of evidence-based guidance on how to enact it. Our primary study identified practices for offering choice, which we called ‘patient view elicitors’ (PVEs) and ‘option-listing’. However, that study was not designed to compare these with recommendations or to analyse the consequences of selecting one practice over another.

Objectives

To (1) map out (a) the three decision-making practices – recommending, PVEs and option-listing – together with (b) their interactional consequences; (2) identify, qualitatively and quantitatively, interactional patterns across our data set; (3) statistically examine the relationship between interactional practices and self-report data; and (4) use the findings from 1–3 to compare the three practices as methods for initiating decision-making.

Design

A mixed-methods secondary analysis of recorded neurology consultations and associated questionnaire responses. We coded every recommendation, PVE and option-list together with a range of variables internal (e.g. patients’ responses) and external to the consultation (e.g. self-reported patient satisfaction). The resulting matrix captured the qualitative and quantitative data for every decision.

Setting and participants

The primary study was conducted in two neurology outpatient centres. A total of 14 neurologists, 223 patients and 114 accompanying others participated.

Results

Distribution of practices – recommending was the most common approach to decision-making. Patient demographics did not appear to play a key role in patterning decisional practices. Several clinical factors did show associations with practice, including (1) that neurologists were more likely to use option-lists or PVEs when making treatment rather than investigation decisions, (2) they were more certain about a diagnosis and (3) symptoms were medically explained. Consequences of practices – option-lists and PVEs (compared with recommendations) – were strongly associated with choice by neurologists and patients. However, there was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction relating to practices employed. Recommendations were strongly associated with a course of action being agreed. Decisions containing PVEs were more likely to end in rejection. Option-lists often ended in the decision being deferred. There was no relationship between length of consultation and the practice employed.

Limitations

A main limitation is that we judged only outcomes based on the recorded consultations and the self-report data collected immediately thereafter. We do not know what happened beyond the consultation.

Conclusions

Patient choice is harder to enact than policy directives acknowledge. Although there is good evidence that neurologists are seeking to enact patient choice, they are still more likely to make recommendations. This appears to be partly due to concerns that ‘choice’ might conflict with doctors’ duty of care. Future guidance needs to draw on evidence regarding choice in practice to support doctors and patients to achieve the wider goal of shared decision-making.

Future research

To advance understanding of how interactional practices might have effects beyond the clinic, a priority is to investigate associations between decision-making practices and external outcomes (such as adherence).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision making in health-care encounters: Systematic review of conversation analytic research

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is generally treated as good practice in health‐care interactions. Conversation analytic research has yielded detailed findings about decision making in health‐care encounters.

Objective

To map decision making communication practices relevant to health‐care outcomes in face‐to‐face interactions yielded by prior conversation analyses, and to examine their function in relation to SDM.

Search strategy

We searched nine electronic databases (last search November 2016) and our own and other academics' collections.

Inclusion criteria

Published conversation analyses (no restriction on publication dates) using recordings of health‐care encounters in English where the patient (and/or companion) was present and where the data and analysis focused on health/illness‐related decision making.

Data extraction and synthesis

We extracted study characteristics, aims, findings relating to communication practices, how these functioned in relation to SDM, and internal/external validity issues. We synthesised findings aggregatively.

Results

Twenty‐eight publications met the inclusion criteria. We sorted findings into 13 types of communication practices and organized these in relation to four elements of decision‐making sequences: (i) broaching decision making; (ii) putting forward a course of action; (iii) committing or not (to the action put forward); and (iv) HCPs' responses to patients' resistance or withholding of commitment. Patients have limited opportunities to influence decision making. HCPs' practices may constrain or encourage this participation.

Conclusions

Patients, companions and HCPs together treat and undertake decision making as shared, though to varying degrees. Even for non‐negotiable treatment trajectories, the spirit of SDM can be invoked through practices that encourage participation (eg by bringing the patient towards shared understanding of the decision's rationale).

Understanding Users in the 'Field' of Medications

The numbers of medicinal drugs available for human consumption have increased rapidly in the past several decades, and physician prescribing practices reflect the growing reliance on medicines in health care. However, the nature of medicines-as-technology makes problematic taken-for-granted relationships among actors involved in the delivery, or who are the recipients of medicines-reliant health care. In this article, I situate the medicine user in the 'field' of medications-where interests, actions and outcomes are continually negotiated among and between the various players-physicians, pharmacists, government regulatory bodies, the pharmaceutical industry and users of medicines. The objective of the paper is to illuminate the complex context in which the medicine-user-the target of the pharmacy profession's service to the public-accesses and uses medicines.