“…They were, for example, found to preempt resistance by mitigating their descriptions of the patient's pain-related behaviour. These findings with respect to practitioners' orientations to the delicate nature of addressing a patient's behaviour are coherent with other studies that examined the ways in which healthcare professionals address psychosocial attributions (Bergmann, 1992;Burbaum et al, 2010;Monzoni & Reuber, 2015). Also, practitioners in our study regularly use the pronoun 'we' when they present their hypotheses.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…(line 11). Note that, by using the mitigator "as it were", the practitioner weakens her claim, displaying how cautiously she is dealing with the delivery of specifically this aspect of the team's problem analysis (see also Bergmann, 1992;Monzoni & Reuber, 2015).…”
Section: Patient Agreement As An Interactional Resource For Building ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The practitioner's formulations "automatic pilot", "survival mode", and "plodding along" (lines 12-13) suggest that the patient's current behaviour is not sustainable in the long term, thereby underscoring the relevance of the team's advice as delivered from line 1 onwards. At the same time, just like the practitioner in Extract 1, this practitioner orients to the delicacy of constructing the patient's current behaviour as problematic: by using formulations that mitigate his description, such as "(like) a kind of" (line 12) and "well almost a kind of" (line 13), the practitioner anticipates potential resistance (see Monzoni & Reuber, 2015).…”
Before patients with chronic pain enter an interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation programme, a team of various healthcare professionals performs a biopsychosocial analysis of their pain problem. To enhance patients’ engagement, the problem analysis is thoroughly discussed with them in order to gain a shared understanding of the nature of their pain problem. This study explores how patients and practitioners talk through their rehabilitation team’s hypotheses regarding the psychosocial factors involved in these patients’ health situation. Nine consultations were recorded at various Dutch interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation units. The recordings were transcribed and analysed, combining an applied conversation analytic research approach with discursive psychology. Patients and practitioners are found to orient to ensuring consensus on the problem analysis as a relevant activity and tend to avoid or minimize the articulation of differences in perspectives. This study also shows that this orientation to consensus involves a delicate management of issues of accountability and blame. Findings can be used by practitioners to consider communication practices that are more likely to encourage patients to voice potential concerns regarding their rehabilitation team’s findings.
“…They were, for example, found to preempt resistance by mitigating their descriptions of the patient's pain-related behaviour. These findings with respect to practitioners' orientations to the delicate nature of addressing a patient's behaviour are coherent with other studies that examined the ways in which healthcare professionals address psychosocial attributions (Bergmann, 1992;Burbaum et al, 2010;Monzoni & Reuber, 2015). Also, practitioners in our study regularly use the pronoun 'we' when they present their hypotheses.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…(line 11). Note that, by using the mitigator "as it were", the practitioner weakens her claim, displaying how cautiously she is dealing with the delivery of specifically this aspect of the team's problem analysis (see also Bergmann, 1992;Monzoni & Reuber, 2015).…”
Section: Patient Agreement As An Interactional Resource For Building ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The practitioner's formulations "automatic pilot", "survival mode", and "plodding along" (lines 12-13) suggest that the patient's current behaviour is not sustainable in the long term, thereby underscoring the relevance of the team's advice as delivered from line 1 onwards. At the same time, just like the practitioner in Extract 1, this practitioner orients to the delicacy of constructing the patient's current behaviour as problematic: by using formulations that mitigate his description, such as "(like) a kind of" (line 12) and "well almost a kind of" (line 13), the practitioner anticipates potential resistance (see Monzoni & Reuber, 2015).…”
Before patients with chronic pain enter an interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation programme, a team of various healthcare professionals performs a biopsychosocial analysis of their pain problem. To enhance patients’ engagement, the problem analysis is thoroughly discussed with them in order to gain a shared understanding of the nature of their pain problem. This study explores how patients and practitioners talk through their rehabilitation team’s hypotheses regarding the psychosocial factors involved in these patients’ health situation. Nine consultations were recorded at various Dutch interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation units. The recordings were transcribed and analysed, combining an applied conversation analytic research approach with discursive psychology. Patients and practitioners are found to orient to ensuring consensus on the problem analysis as a relevant activity and tend to avoid or minimize the articulation of differences in perspectives. This study also shows that this orientation to consensus involves a delicate management of issues of accountability and blame. Findings can be used by practitioners to consider communication practices that are more likely to encourage patients to voice potential concerns regarding their rehabilitation team’s findings.
“…They were, for example, found to pre-empt resistance by mitigating their descriptions of the patient's pain-related behaviour. These findings with respect to practitioners' orientations to the delicate nature of addressing a patient's behaviour are coherent with other studies that examined the ways in which healthcare professionals address psychosocial attributions (Bergmann, 1992;Burbaum et al, 2010;Monzoni & Reuber, 2015). Also, practitioners in our study regularly use the pronoun 'we' when they present their hypotheses.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The practitioner's formulations "automatic pilot", "survival mode", and "plodding along" (lines 12-13) suggest that the patient's current behaviour is not sustainable in the long term, thereby underscoring the relevance of the team's advice as delivered from line 1 onwards. At the same time, just like the practitioner in Extract 4.1, this practitioner orients to the delicacy of constructing the patient's current behaviour as problematic: by using formulations that mitigate his description, such as "(like) a kind of" (line 12) and "well almost a kind of" (line 13), the practitioner anticipates potential resistance (see Monzoni & Reuber, 2015).…”
This thesis and the work to which it refers are the results of my own efforts. Any ideas, data, images or text resulting from the work of others (whether published or unpublished) are fully identified as such within the work and attributed to their originator in the text, bibliography or in footnotes. This thesis has not been submitted in whole or in part for any other academic degree or professional qualification. I agree that the University has the right to submit my work to the plagiarism detection service TurnitinUK for originality checks. Whether or not drafts have been so-assessed, the University reserves the right to require an electronic version of the final document (as submitted) for assessment as above.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.