分娩是断层线:关于产后康复的医患互动中的理由。

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Health Care Analysis Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1007/s10728-024-00486-y
Xin Li, Yinong Tian, Yanping Meng, Lanzhong Wang, Yonggang Su
{"title":"分娩是断层线:关于产后康复的医患互动中的理由。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

关于 "理由 "的研究表明,"理由 "在提供建议、决策和儿童纠纷中具有重要意义。然而,大多数研究都忽略了辩解在医患互动中的实用功能,因为辩解往往是患者所期待和追求的,反过来,医生也会采用辩解来支持自己的立场和权威。本研究通过会话分析(CA),旨在探讨:a) 在医患互动中,理由的实用功能是什么;b) 医生如何以及何时为治疗建议提出理由;c) 医生如何根据其认识论和道义论领域处理不同的反应。本研究共收集并研究了 32 段产后妇女与医生之间的视频录像。研究探讨了医生提出的四种实用性理由:面子理由、保证理由、风险讨论理由和寻求澄清理由。尽管医生试图证明他们的立场较少受到病人的质疑,但这并不是全部,因为他们表现出希望解决病人的担忧并协调他们的观点,以实现有利于病人福祉的最佳做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Childbirth as Fault Lines: Justifications in Physician-Patient Interactions About Postnatal Rehabilitation.

Childbirth as Fault Lines: Justifications in Physician-Patient Interactions About Postnatal Rehabilitation.

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.

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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
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.
×
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