ArticlePatient education and counseling2025
Promoting interactional health equity through (Complementary and Integrative Health) talk during clinical encounters.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesComplementary and Integrative Health (CIH) is recognized as a set of modalities to bolster health and well-being often outside of standard biomedical practice. How people discuss CIH with their biomedical providers is a microcosm for health communication more generally. In this Discussion, we propose a revision of the Street et al. (2009) conceptual framework to illustrate how CIH talk during a clinical encounter has the potential to contribute to (or detract from) interactional health equity.
methodsWe use discourse analytic techniques to re-analyze two digitally recorded biomedical encounters.
resultsTwo case studies are re-analyzed to illustrate how clinician-client conversation about CIH during a clinical encounter might lead to interactional health equity.
conclusionsInteractions with clinicians can be challenging due to differences in knowledge about biomedicine, administrative processes, and even navigating interpersonal relationships. How a clinician responds can either center a biomedical agenda in the Voice of Medicine or help ratify a patient's agenda in the Voice of the Lifeworld. How clinicians and patients negotiate CIH talk is conceptually linked with immediate interactional outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In populations in which patients/caregivers or their extended communities may already have low trust in biomedicine, a mistrustful therapeutic alliance, or history of discrimination, disattention of the Lifeworld and avoiding talk about CIH has the possibility of exacerbating inequities. Every turn at talk during a clinical encounter has the potential to foster increased social participation which, in turn, may contribute to health outcomes and influence patient and community well-being at individual, community, and institutional levels. CIH talk can open space for patients to actively participate in healthcare by incorporating the patients' Lifeworld into the clinical encounter and can contribute to interactional health equity within clinical encounters.
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.