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

Tools

Land, Victoria, Parry, Ruth H. and Jane, Seymour (2017) Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision making in health-care encounters: systematic review of conversation analytic research. Health Expectations, 20 (6). pp. 1228-1247. ISSN 1369-7625

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

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).

Item Type: Article
RIS ID: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/964639
Additional Information: Systematic review is registered with PROSPERO: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014009731
Keywords: conversation analysis, medical interaction, patient choice, patient participation, shared decision making, systematic review
Schools/Departments: University of Nottingham, UK > Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > School of Health Sciences
Identification Number: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12557
Depositing User: Parry, Ruth
Date Deposited: 31 Mar 2017 08:34
Last Modified: 04 May 2020 19:54
URI: https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/41656

Actions (Archive Staff Only)

Edit View Edit View