了解生活方式建议与患者参与之间的脱节:对心脏病患者如何构建专家知识的话语分析。

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Martine Robson, Sarah Riley, Donogh McKeogh
{"title":"了解生活方式建议与患者参与之间的脱节:对心脏病患者如何构建专家知识的话语分析。","authors":"Martine Robson, Sarah Riley, Donogh McKeogh","doi":"10.1080/08870446.2024.2390031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Adherence to healthy lifestyle advice is effective in prevention of non-communicable diseases like coronary heart disease (CHD). Yet patient disengagement is the norm. We take a novel discursive approach to explore patients' negotiation of lifestyle advice and behaviour change.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A discourse analysis was performed on 35 longitudinal interviews with 22 heterosexual British people in a long-term relationship, where one had a diagnosis of CHD. The analysis examined the relationships between patients' constructions of expert knowledge and the implications of these accounts for patients' dis/engagement with lifestyle advice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Expert knowledge was constructed in four ways: (1) Expert advice was valued, but adherence created new risks that undermined it; (2) expert knowledge was problematised as multiple, contradictory, and contested and therefore difficult to follow; (3) expert advice was problematised as too generalised to meet patients' specific needs; and (4) expert advice was understood as limited and only one form of valued knowledge.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients and partners simultaneously valued and problematised expert knowledge, drawing on elaborate lay epistemologies relating to their illness which produced complex patterns of (dis)engagement with expert lifestyle advice. Recognition of the multiple and fluid forms of knowledge mobilised by CHD patients could inform more effective interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":20718,"journal":{"name":"Psychology & Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the disconnect between lifestyle advice and patient engagement: a discourse analysis of how expert knowledge is constructed by patients with CHD.\",\"authors\":\"Martine Robson, Sarah Riley, Donogh McKeogh\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08870446.2024.2390031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Adherence to healthy lifestyle advice is effective in prevention of non-communicable diseases like coronary heart disease (CHD). Yet patient disengagement is the norm. We take a novel discursive approach to explore patients' negotiation of lifestyle advice and behaviour change.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A discourse analysis was performed on 35 longitudinal interviews with 22 heterosexual British people in a long-term relationship, where one had a diagnosis of CHD. The analysis examined the relationships between patients' constructions of expert knowledge and the implications of these accounts for patients' dis/engagement with lifestyle advice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Expert knowledge was constructed in four ways: (1) Expert advice was valued, but adherence created new risks that undermined it; (2) expert knowledge was problematised as multiple, contradictory, and contested and therefore difficult to follow; (3) expert advice was problematised as too generalised to meet patients' specific needs; and (4) expert advice was understood as limited and only one form of valued knowledge.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients and partners simultaneously valued and problematised expert knowledge, drawing on elaborate lay epistemologies relating to their illness which produced complex patterns of (dis)engagement with expert lifestyle advice. Recognition of the multiple and fluid forms of knowledge mobilised by CHD patients could inform more effective interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20718,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology & Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2024.2390031\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2024.2390031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:遵守健康生活方式建议可有效预防冠心病等非传染性疾病。然而,患者不参与却是常态。我们采用一种新颖的话语方法来探讨患者对生活方式建议和行为改变的协商:方法:我们对 35 个纵向访谈进行了话语分析,访谈对象是 22 名处于长期关系中的英国异性恋者,其中一人被诊断出患有冠心病。分析研究了患者对专家知识的建构之间的关系,以及这些建构对患者不接受/参与生活方式建议的影响:专家知识有四种构建方式:(1) 专家建议受到重视,但坚持专家建议会带来新的风险,从而破坏专家建议;(2) 专家知识被认为是多重的、矛盾的和有争议的,因此难以遵循;(3) 专家建议被认为过于笼统,无法满足患者的具体需求;(4) 专家建议被认为是有限的,只是受重视知识的一种形式:患者及其伴侣同时重视专家的知识,并对其提出质疑,他们借鉴了与自身疾病有关的复杂的非专业认识论,从而形成了(不)参与专家生活方式建议的复杂模式。认识到慢性阻塞性肺病患者所调动的知识形式的多重性和流动性,可以为更有效的干预措施提供依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding the disconnect between lifestyle advice and patient engagement: a discourse analysis of how expert knowledge is constructed by patients with CHD.

Objective: Adherence to healthy lifestyle advice is effective in prevention of non-communicable diseases like coronary heart disease (CHD). Yet patient disengagement is the norm. We take a novel discursive approach to explore patients' negotiation of lifestyle advice and behaviour change.

Method: A discourse analysis was performed on 35 longitudinal interviews with 22 heterosexual British people in a long-term relationship, where one had a diagnosis of CHD. The analysis examined the relationships between patients' constructions of expert knowledge and the implications of these accounts for patients' dis/engagement with lifestyle advice.

Results: Expert knowledge was constructed in four ways: (1) Expert advice was valued, but adherence created new risks that undermined it; (2) expert knowledge was problematised as multiple, contradictory, and contested and therefore difficult to follow; (3) expert advice was problematised as too generalised to meet patients' specific needs; and (4) expert advice was understood as limited and only one form of valued knowledge.

Conclusion: Patients and partners simultaneously valued and problematised expert knowledge, drawing on elaborate lay epistemologies relating to their illness which produced complex patterns of (dis)engagement with expert lifestyle advice. Recognition of the multiple and fluid forms of knowledge mobilised by CHD patients could inform more effective interventions.

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
7.30
自引率
3.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Psychology & Health promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to health and illness. The contents include work on psychological aspects of physical illness, treatment processes and recovery; psychosocial factors in the aetiology of physical illnesses; health attitudes and behaviour, including prevention; the individual-health care system interface particularly communication and psychologically-based interventions. The journal publishes original research, and accepts not only papers describing rigorous empirical work, including meta-analyses, but also those outlining new psychological approaches and interventions in health-related fields.
×
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