Argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues: An interdisciplinary perspective

IF 2.9 2区医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Patient Education and Counseling Pub Date : 2024-12-24 DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2024.108626

Sarah Bigi

{"title":"Argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues: An interdisciplinary perspective","authors":"Sarah Bigi","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Building on existing literature, which has pointed out the acceptability of certain persuasive strategies used by specialists in clinical communication, the article aims to describe the forms and functions of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The article relies on classical definitions of argumentative discourse that describe argumentation as the communication process characterized by a standpoint and at least an expression of doubt, often also by the presence of arguments in favor or against the standpoint.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Through examples from real-life cases, it is shown that besides the typical function of persuasion, argumentation in clinical dialogues may have also the function of finding agreement for the alignment of assessments and for deliberation.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>This implies that when analyzing argumentative discourse, wider stretches of dialogue should be taken into consideration, not limiting observations to single turns or adjacency pairs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The article highlights the importance of correctly understanding the role argumentation can play in the medical context and offers some suggestions for the analysis of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues, in view of study design and professionals’ training.</div></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><div>The article offers insights for the development of training materials in view of improving HCPs’ abilities to put forward reasons for clinical decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 108626"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Education and Counseling","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399124004932","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Building on existing literature, which has pointed out the acceptability of certain persuasive strategies used by specialists in clinical communication, the article aims to describe the forms and functions of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues.

Methods

The article relies on classical definitions of argumentative discourse that describe argumentation as the communication process characterized by a standpoint and at least an expression of doubt, often also by the presence of arguments in favor or against the standpoint.

Results

Through examples from real-life cases, it is shown that besides the typical function of persuasion, argumentation in clinical dialogues may have also the function of finding agreement for the alignment of assessments and for deliberation.

Discussion

This implies that when analyzing argumentative discourse, wider stretches of dialogue should be taken into consideration, not limiting observations to single turns or adjacency pairs.

Conclusion

The article highlights the importance of correctly understanding the role argumentation can play in the medical context and offers some suggestions for the analysis of argumentative discourse in clinical dialogues, in view of study design and professionals’ training.

Practice implications

The article offers insights for the development of training materials in view of improving HCPs’ abilities to put forward reasons for clinical decisions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

临床对话中的论辩话语：跨学科的视角。

目的：在现有文献的基础上，本文旨在描述临床对话中论证话语的形式和功能，这些文献指出了专家在临床沟通中使用的某些说服策略的可接受性。方法：本文依赖于议论文的经典定义，将议论文描述为以立场和至少表达怀疑为特征的交流过程，通常也通过支持或反对该立场的论点的存在。结果：通过现实案例的例子表明，除了典型的说服功能外，临床对话中的论证还可能具有寻找一致评估和审议的功能。讨论：这意味着在分析议论性话语时，应该考虑更广泛的对话范围，而不是将观察局限于单个回合或邻接对。结论：本文强调了正确认识论证话语在医学语境中的作用的重要性，并从研究设计和专业人员培养的角度对临床对话中论证话语的分析提出了建议。实践意义：本文为培训材料的开发提供了一些见解，以提高医护人员提出临床决策理由的能力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Patient Education and Counseling 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

11.40%

发文量

384

审稿时长

46 days

期刊介绍： Patient Education and Counseling is an interdisciplinary, international journal for patient education and health promotion researchers, managers and clinicians. The journal seeks to explore and elucidate the educational, counseling and communication models in health care. Its aim is to provide a forum for fundamental as well as applied research, and to promote the study of organizational issues involved with the delivery of patient education, counseling, health promotion services and training models in improving communication between providers and patients.