Why do patients not answer the question that was asked? Analysis of physiotherapist-patient consultations 2
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The study examines the initial phases of physiotherapist-patient interactions during their first encounters. The analysis focuses on patients’ answers to physiotherapists’ opening questions (OpQ). Since the goal of the OpQ is to explore the reasons for the visit, i.e. patients’ currently experienced problems, the inductive classification of patients’ answers was based on their information content. Seven answer categories were identified in the corpus: (1) Informative (40%), (2) (Hi)story (26,7%), (3) Incomplete (22,7%), (4) Imaging results, medical diagnosis (21,3%), (5) Pragmatically inappropriate (12%), (6) Clarification (2,7%), and (7) Other (5,3%) type of answers respectively. Statistical analysis examining the relationships between OpQs’ linguistic characteristics and the provided answer types does not explain the variety of the latter. The study attempts to explain the results within the framework of the socio-cognitive approach.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Allan, Keith 2013. What is common ground? In Alessandro Capone – Franco Lo Piparo – Marco Carapezza (szerk.) Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics. (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 2) Cham: Springer. 285–310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_11
Bara, Bruno G. 2017. Cognitive pragmatics. In Yan Huang (szerk.) The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 279–299. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.14
Beckman, Howard B. – Richard M. Frankel 1984. The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Annals of Internal Medicine 101/5:692–696. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-101-5-692
Boncz Imre (szerk.) 2015. Kutatásmódszertani alapismeretek. Pécs: Pécsi Tudományegyetem Egészségtudományi Kar.
Brinjikji, W. – P.H. Luetmer – B. Comstock – B.W. Bresnahan – L.E. Chen et al. 2015. Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. American Journal of Neuroradiology 36/4:811–816. doi: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4173
Charon, Rita – Michele G. Greene – Ronald D. Adelman 1994. Multi-dimensional interaction analysis: A collaborative approach to the study of medical discourse. Social Science & Medicine 39/7:955–965. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)90207-0
Chester, Emily C. – Natalie C. Robinson – Lisa C. Roberts 2014. Opening clinical encounters in an adult musculoskeletal setting. Manual Therapy 19/4:306–310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2014.03.011
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539
Clark, Herbert H. – Edward F. Schaefer 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 13/2:259–294. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7
Dijck, José van 2005. The Transparent Body. A Cultural Analysis of Medical Imaging. (In Vivo) Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Engel, George L. 1977. The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science 196/4286:129–136. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460
Geurts, Bart 2017. Presupposition and givenness. In Yan Huang (szerk.) The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 180–198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.21
Gobat, Nina – Paul Kinnersley – John W. Gregory – Michael Robling 2015. What is agenda setting in the clinical encounter? Consensus from literature review and expert consultation. Patient Education and Counseling 98/7:822–829. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.024
Grice, H. Paul 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole – Jerry L. Morgan (szerk.) Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.
Gyuris, Beáta 2017. New perspectives on bias in polar questions: A study of Hungarian -e. International Review of Pragmatics 9/1:1–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00000003
Hakulinen, Auli 2009. Conversation types. In Sigurd D’hondt – Jan-Ola Östman – Jef Verschueren (szerk.) The Pragmatics of Interaction. (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 4) John Benjamins Publishing Company. 55–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.4.03hak
Hayano, Kaoru 2012. Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell – Tanya Stivers (szerk.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 395–414. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch19
Heritage, John 2010. Questioning in medicine. In Alice F. Freed – Susan Ehrlich (szerk.) „Why Do You Ask?” The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford University Press. 42–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0003
Heritage, John – Douglas W. Maynard 2006. Introduction: Analyzing interaction between doctors and patients in primary care encounters. In John Heritage – Douglas W. Maynard (szerk.) Communication in Medical Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607172.003
Heritage, John – Jeffrey D. Robinson 2006a. Accounting for the visit: giving reasons for seeking medical care. In John Heritage – Douglas W. Maynard (szerk.) Communication in Medical Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 48–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607172.005
Heritage, John – Jeffrey D. Robinson 2006b. The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: Physicians’ opening questions. Health Communication 19/2:89–102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1902_1
Hood-Medland, Eve Angeline – Anne E. C. White – Richard L. Kravitz – Stephen G. Henry 2021. Agenda setting and visit openings in primary care visits involving patients taking opioids for chronic pain. BMC Family Practice 22:4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01317-4
Hydén, Lars–Christer – Elliot G. Mishler 1999. Language and Medicine. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19:174–192. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190599190093
Jones, Rodney H. 2013. Health and Risk Communication. An Applied Linguistic Perspective. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Kecskes, Istvan 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40/3:385–406. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
Kecskes, Istvan 2010. The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1/1:50–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
Kecskes, Istvan 2012. Encyclopaedic knowledge and cultural models. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (szerk.) Cognitive Pragmatics. (Handbooks of Pragmatics 4) Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter. 175–197. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.175
Kecskes, István 2014. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kecskes, Istvan 2017. Cross- Cultural and Intercultural Pragmatics. In Yan Huang (szerk.) The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 400–415.
Kecskes, Istvan – Fenghui Zhang 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17/2:331–355. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
Kiefer, Ferenc 1980. Yes-no questions as Wh-questions. In John R. Searle – Ferenc Kiefer – Manfred Bierwisch (szerk.) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. (Texts and Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 10) Dordrecht: Springer. 97–119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8964-1_5
Mishler, Elliot George 1984. The Discourse of Medicine. Dialectics of Medical Interviews. (Language and Learning for Human Service Professions) Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Németh T., Enikő 2019. Implicit Subject and Direct Object Arguments in Hungarian Language Use. Grammar and Pragmatics Interacting. (Pragmatic Interfaces) Equinox.
Roberts, Lisa C. – Faye A. Burrow 2018. Interruption and rapport disruption: measuring the prevalence and nature of verbal interruptions during back pain consultations. Journal of Communication in Healthcare 11/2:95–105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2018.1449289
Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2006. Soliciting patients’ presenting concerns. In John Heritage – Douglas W. Maynard (szerk.) Communication in Medical Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 22–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607172.004
Robinson, Jeffrey D. – John Heritage 2005. The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: the completion relevance of current symptoms. Social Science & Medicine 61/2:481–493. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.004
Robinson, Jeffrey D. – Alexandra Tate – John Heritage 2016. Agenda-setting revisited: When and how do primary-care physicians solicit patients’ additional concerns? Patient Education and Counseling 99/5:718–723. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.12.009
Rudy, Iris Sun – Alexandra Poulos – Laura Owen – Ashlee Batters – Kasia Kieliszek – Jessica Willox – Hazel Jenkins 2015. The correlation of radiographic findings and patient symptomatology in cervical degenerative joint disease: a cross-sectional study. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 23:9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-015-0052-0
Sacks, Harvey – Emanuel A. Schegloff – Gail Jefferson 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50/4:696–735. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
Schegloff, Emanuel A. – Harvey Sacks 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8/4:289–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Sidnell, Jack 2010. Conversation Analysis. An introduction. (Language in Society 37) Chichester, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Silverman, Jonathan – Suzanne M. Kurtz – Juliet Draper 2013. Skills for communicating with patients. 3. kiadás. London: Radcliffe Publishing.
Smith, Robert C. – Auguste H. Fortin – Francesca Dwamena – Richard M. Frankel 2013. An evidence-based patient-centered method makes the biopsychosocial model scientific. Patient Education and Counseling 91/3:265–270. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.12.010
Stalnaker, Robert 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25/5–6:701–721. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902
Stortenbeker, Inge – Wyke Stommel – Sandra Dulmen – Peter Lucassen – Enny Das – Tim Hartman 2020. Linguistic and interactional aspects that characterize consultations about medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 132:109994. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.109994
Teas Gill, Virginia – Felicia Roberts 2012. Conversation analysis in medicine. In Jack Sidnell – Tanya Stivers (szerk.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 575–592. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch28
Tsai, Mei-hui 2006. Opening hearts and minds: a linguistic framework for analyzing open questions in doctor-patient communication = 使君傾言 : 醫病溝通中開放式問句之語言學分析. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Tsai, Mei-hui – Feng-hwa Lu – Richard M. Frankel 2014. Teaching medical students to become discourse analysts. From conversational transcripts to clinical applications. In Heidi Ehernberger Hamilton – Wen-ying Sylvia Chou (szerk.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Health Communication. London: Routledge. 327–343. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315856971.ch20
Verschueren, Jef 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold Publishers.