Xin Li, Yinong Tian, Yanping Meng, Lanzhong Wang, Yonggang Su
{"title":"Childbirth as Fault Lines: Justifications in Physician-Patient Interactions About Postnatal Rehabilitation.","authors":"Xin Li, Yinong Tian, Yanping Meng, Lanzhong Wang, Yonggang Su","doi":"10.1007/s10728-024-00486-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on justifications has shown their significance in advice-giving, decision-making and children disputes. However, the majority of studies gloss over practical functions of justifications in patient-physician interactions as they are often expected and pursued by patients and in turn, are adopted by physicians to support their stance and authority. This study, through conversation analysis (CA), aims to explore a) what are pragmatic functions of justifications in patient-physician interaction? b) how and when do physicians unfold their justifications for treatment recommendations? c) how do physicians deal with different responses based on their epistemic and deontic domains?. A total of 32 video-recordings between postpartum women and physicians are collected and studied. Four pragmatic functions of justifications drawn upon by physicians are explored: justifications as face-saving, reassurance, risk discussion and clarification-seeking. Despite physicians' attempts to justify their positions as less challenged by patients, this is not the entire picture as they demonstrate their desire to resolve patients' concerns and coordinate their viewpoints to achieve the best practice that facilitates patients' well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":"312-337"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-024-00486-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Research on justifications has shown their significance in advice-giving, decision-making and children disputes. However, the majority of studies gloss over practical functions of justifications in patient-physician interactions as they are often expected and pursued by patients and in turn, are adopted by physicians to support their stance and authority. This study, through conversation analysis (CA), aims to explore a) what are pragmatic functions of justifications in patient-physician interaction? b) how and when do physicians unfold their justifications for treatment recommendations? c) how do physicians deal with different responses based on their epistemic and deontic domains?. A total of 32 video-recordings between postpartum women and physicians are collected and studied. Four pragmatic functions of justifications drawn upon by physicians are explored: justifications as face-saving, reassurance, risk discussion and clarification-seeking. Despite physicians' attempts to justify their positions as less challenged by patients, this is not the entire picture as they demonstrate their desire to resolve patients' concerns and coordinate their viewpoints to achieve the best practice that facilitates patients' well-being.
期刊介绍：
Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
