Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30671991›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2019

How clients solicit medication changes in psychiatry.

Galina B Bolden, Beth Angell, Alexa Hepburn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Galina B BoldenDepartment of Communication, Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
Beth AngellVirginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Alexa HepburnDepartment of Communication, Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

ADHERENCE AND EMPOWERMENT: Service Participation and Meaningful OutcomesP20MH085981 · NIMH · ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI CORRIGAN, PATRICK W · 2009 to 2013
$4.9M
NIMH NIH HHS P20 MH085981
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision MakingPhysician-Patient RelationsPsychiatryHumansSchizophreniaconversation analysisprovider-patient communicationpsychiatryrequesting medications

Identifiers

PMID30671991
PMCPMC6359956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.