物理治疗师在治疗腰痛患者时如何关注患者的护理:专题分析。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Health Sociology Review Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-11 DOI:10.1080/14461242.2022.2161927
M Dillon, R Olson, K Mescouto, N Costa, J Setchell
{"title":"物理治疗师在治疗腰痛患者时如何关注患者的护理:专题分析。","authors":"M Dillon,&nbsp;R Olson,&nbsp;K Mescouto,&nbsp;N Costa,&nbsp;J Setchell","doi":"10.1080/14461242.2022.2161927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pain is a multidimensional experience. Physiotherapy has attempted to enhance earlier biomedical approaches to patient care through approaches like the 'biopsychosocial' model. Nevertheless, physiotherapy continues to focus on biomedical and/or behavioural aspects of care. We critically investigated how physiotherapists attend to human (psychosocial, emotional, existential, and moral) aspects of low back pain care. We co-analysed ethnographic data with researchers, patients, and physiotherapists using concepts of conforming, tinkering and abandoning 'scripts'. Data included observations of 28 physiotherapy interactions between 26 patients and 10 physiotherapists and 7 researcher-clinician dialogues. Analysis suggests when conforming to scripts, clinicians have difficulty recognising and responding to emotions; time pressure limited clinicians focus, and a biological focus often distracted from psychosocial aspects of people's back pain experiences. In contrast, tinkering with or abandoning scripts allowed space to broaden the focus. Drawing from theorists such as Butler (1999) and Gibson et al. (2020) our analysis contributes to health sociology, arguing that 'tinkering' with or 'abandoning' scripts can foster more humanistic, flexible and reflexive approaches to care. Although health sociologists have explored tinkering, abandoning is new; within physiotherapy, it encapsulates being able to respond with agility to non-physical elements of care without constraint from traditional ways of thinking and doing.</p>","PeriodicalId":46833,"journal":{"name":"Health Sociology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How physiotherapists attend to the human aspects of care when working with people with low back pain: a thematic analysis.\",\"authors\":\"M Dillon,&nbsp;R Olson,&nbsp;K Mescouto,&nbsp;N Costa,&nbsp;J Setchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14461242.2022.2161927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Pain is a multidimensional experience. Physiotherapy has attempted to enhance earlier biomedical approaches to patient care through approaches like the 'biopsychosocial' model. Nevertheless, physiotherapy continues to focus on biomedical and/or behavioural aspects of care. We critically investigated how physiotherapists attend to human (psychosocial, emotional, existential, and moral) aspects of low back pain care. We co-analysed ethnographic data with researchers, patients, and physiotherapists using concepts of conforming, tinkering and abandoning 'scripts'. Data included observations of 28 physiotherapy interactions between 26 patients and 10 physiotherapists and 7 researcher-clinician dialogues. Analysis suggests when conforming to scripts, clinicians have difficulty recognising and responding to emotions; time pressure limited clinicians focus, and a biological focus often distracted from psychosocial aspects of people's back pain experiences. In contrast, tinkering with or abandoning scripts allowed space to broaden the focus. Drawing from theorists such as Butler (1999) and Gibson et al. (2020) our analysis contributes to health sociology, arguing that 'tinkering' with or 'abandoning' scripts can foster more humanistic, flexible and reflexive approaches to care. Although health sociologists have explored tinkering, abandoning is new; within physiotherapy, it encapsulates being able to respond with agility to non-physical elements of care without constraint from traditional ways of thinking and doing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Sociology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Sociology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2022.2161927\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Sociology Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2022.2161927","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

疼痛是一种多层面的体验。物理疗法试图通过“生物-心理-社会”模式等方法来增强早期的生物医学患者护理方法。尽管如此,物理治疗仍然侧重于生物医学和/或行为方面的护理。我们批判性地调查了理疗师如何处理腰痛护理的人类(心理、情感、生存和道德)方面。我们与研究人员、患者和理疗师共同分析了民族志数据,使用了顺应、修补和放弃“脚本”的概念。数据包括26名患者和10名物理治疗师之间28次物理治疗互动的观察结果,以及7次研究人员-临床医生对话。分析表明,当遵循脚本时,临床医生很难识别和应对情绪;时间压力限制了临床医生的注意力,而生物学上的注意力往往分散在人们背痛经历的心理社会方面。相比之下,修改或放弃脚本为扩大焦点提供了空间。借鉴Butler(1999)和Gibson等人(2020)等理论家的观点,我们的分析有助于健康社会学,认为“修改”或“放弃”脚本可以培养更人性化、灵活和反射性的护理方法。尽管健康社会学家已经探索了修补,但放弃是新的;在理疗中,它概括了能够灵活应对非物理护理元素,而不受传统思维和行为方式的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How physiotherapists attend to the human aspects of care when working with people with low back pain: a thematic analysis.

Pain is a multidimensional experience. Physiotherapy has attempted to enhance earlier biomedical approaches to patient care through approaches like the 'biopsychosocial' model. Nevertheless, physiotherapy continues to focus on biomedical and/or behavioural aspects of care. We critically investigated how physiotherapists attend to human (psychosocial, emotional, existential, and moral) aspects of low back pain care. We co-analysed ethnographic data with researchers, patients, and physiotherapists using concepts of conforming, tinkering and abandoning 'scripts'. Data included observations of 28 physiotherapy interactions between 26 patients and 10 physiotherapists and 7 researcher-clinician dialogues. Analysis suggests when conforming to scripts, clinicians have difficulty recognising and responding to emotions; time pressure limited clinicians focus, and a biological focus often distracted from psychosocial aspects of people's back pain experiences. In contrast, tinkering with or abandoning scripts allowed space to broaden the focus. Drawing from theorists such as Butler (1999) and Gibson et al. (2020) our analysis contributes to health sociology, arguing that 'tinkering' with or 'abandoning' scripts can foster more humanistic, flexible and reflexive approaches to care. Although health sociologists have explored tinkering, abandoning is new; within physiotherapy, it encapsulates being able to respond with agility to non-physical elements of care without constraint from traditional ways of thinking and doing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: An international, scholarly peer-reviewed journal, Health Sociology Review explores the contribution of sociology and sociological research methods to understanding health and illness; to health policy, promotion and practice; and to equity, social justice, social policy and social work. Health Sociology Review is published in association with The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) under the editorship of Eileen Willis. Health Sociology Review publishes original theoretical and research articles, literature reviews, special issues, symposia, commentaries and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信