ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021
Interactional practices in person-centred care: Conversation analysis of nurse-patient disagreement during self-management support.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning from the implementation of person-centred care: a meta-synthesis of research related to the Gothenburg framework.Frontiers in health services · 2025Review
- Experiences of persons with multiple sclerosis of a collaborative care programme: A qualitative study.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Interactional practices in person-centred care: Conversation analysis of nurse-patient disagreement during self-management support.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerson-centred care implies a change in interaction between care professionals and patients where patients are not passive recipients but co-producers of care. The interactional practices of person-centred care remain largely unexplored.
objectiveThis study focuses on the analysis of disagreements, which are described as an important part in the co-production of knowledge in interaction.
designA qualitative exploratory study using conversation analysis. SETTING AND
participantsData were collected from a nurse-led person-centred intervention in a hospital outpatient setting. Interactions between adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome (n = 17) and a registered nurse were audio-recorded. COREQ guidelines were applied.
resultsDisagreements were found after demonstration of the nurse's or patients' respective professional or personal knowledge. Disagreements were also evident when deciding on strategies for self-management. Although negotiations between opposing views of the nurse and patient were seen as important, the patient generally claimed final authority both in knowing how IBS is perceived and in the right to choose self-management strategies. The nurse generally oriented towards patient authority, but instances of demonstration of nurse authority despite patient resistance were also found. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThis study provides information on how co-production of knowledge and decisions occur in the context of a person-centred care intervention. Negotiations between nurse and patient views require a flexible approach to communication, adapting interaction to each context while bearing in mind the patients having the final authority. To facilitate co-production, the patient's role and responsibilities in interaction should be explicitly stated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.