Is 'shared decision-making' feasible in consultations for upper respiratory tract infections? Assessing the influence of antibiotic expectations using discourse analysis

Elwyn, Glyn ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0917-6286, Gwyn, Richard ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4446-3002, Edwards, Adrian G. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6228-4446 and Grol, Richard 1999. Is 'shared decision-making' feasible in consultations for upper respiratory tract infections? Assessing the influence of antibiotic expectations using discourse analysis. Health Expectations 2 (2) , pp. 105-117. 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00045.x

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the discourse of consultations in which conflict occurs between parents and clinicians about the necessity of antibiotics to treat an upper respiratory tract infection. To appraise the feasibility of shared decision-making in such consultations. Design: A qualitative study using discourse analysis techniques. Setting: A general practice with 12 500 patients in an urban area of Cardiff, Wales. Participants: Two consultations were purposively selected from a number of audiotaped sessions. The consultations took place during normal clinics in which appointments are booked at 7-minute intervals. The practitioner is known to be interested in involving patients in treatment decisions. Method: Discourse analysis was employed to examine the consultation transcripts. This analysis was then compared with the theoretical competencies proposed for ‘shared decision-making’. Results: The consultations exhibit less rational strategies than those suggested by the shared decision-making model. Strong parental views are expressed (overtly and covertly) which seem derived from prior experiences of similar illnesses and prescribing behaviours. The clinician responds by emphasizing the ‘normality’ of upper respiratory tract infections and their recurrence, accompanied by expressions that antibiotic treatment is ineffective in ‘viral’ illness – the suggested diagnosis. The competencies of ‘shared decision-making’ are not exhibited. Conclusions: The current understanding of shared decision-making needs to be developed for those situations where there are dis-agreements due to the strongly held views of the participants. Clinicians have limited strategies in situations where patient treatment preferences are opposed to professional views. Dispelling ‘misconceptions’ by sharing information and negotiating agreed management plans are recommended. But it seems that communication skills, information content and consultation length have to receive attention if such strategies are to be employed successfully.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	English, Communication and Philosophy Medicine
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Uncontrolled Keywords:	antibiotic prescribing; discourse analysis; patient participation; professional practice; shared decision-making
Publisher:	Wiley
ISSN:	1369-6513
Last Modified:	27 Oct 2022 09:03
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/64207

Citation Data

Cited 56 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item