{"title":"为患有长期慢性视网膜病变的老年人提供门诊咨询的议程设置","authors":"Hao Zhao, Shuai Zhang, Wen Ma","doi":"10.1111/hex.70101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Agenda setting in doctor–patient interaction refers to the process when various agendas are presented and responded to. This study revealed how Long-COVID (LC) agenda items are managed by older adults and doctors during outpatient consultations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Based on audio recordings, we adopted Conversation Analysis (CA) to unveil under what circumstances the patient or the doctor set the agenda and how they collaboratively work to develop an LC topic. Data was transcribed in accordance with the transcription conventions developed by Jefferson.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Agendas were divided into three categories, namely primary, additional, and unmet agenda items. LC agendas were identified with specific characteristics based on qualitative analysis and older adults tended to seek more medical assistance, particularly concerning their chronic diseases. We observed that patients initiate agendas more often than doctors and it could happen at any stage of the visit, both parties can resist expanding the agenda, mostly in an indirect way, and agendas that contain more information with simpler turn-constructions are more likely to be well-addressed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Better quality of consultation was found when doctors sensitively detect the emotional change and the potential issues of the patients when they prevaricate to avoid the relevance of the previous infection. The findings also suggested that understanding the dynamics of agenda setting in consultations could lead to improvements in medical visit outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient and Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>Patients and doctors in the study were colleagues in a university hospital. They were involved in various stages of this study to ensure it addresses real-world concerns and improves healthcare outcomes. Throughout data collection, patients contributed by allowing their consultations to be recorded and providing feedback on their experiences. Findings were discussed with a patient advisory group to ensure the interpretations aligned with patient perspectives. Doctors were also actively engaged in disseminating the results through later consultations, ensuring broad accessibility and practical application of the research outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70101","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agenda Setting in Outpatient Consultation of Older Adults With Long-COVID\",\"authors\":\"Hao Zhao, Shuai Zhang, Wen Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Agenda setting in doctor–patient interaction refers to the process when various agendas are presented and responded to. This study revealed how Long-COVID (LC) agenda items are managed by older adults and doctors during outpatient consultations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Based on audio recordings, we adopted Conversation Analysis (CA) to unveil under what circumstances the patient or the doctor set the agenda and how they collaboratively work to develop an LC topic. Data was transcribed in accordance with the transcription conventions developed by Jefferson.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Agendas were divided into three categories, namely primary, additional, and unmet agenda items. LC agendas were identified with specific characteristics based on qualitative analysis and older adults tended to seek more medical assistance, particularly concerning their chronic diseases. We observed that patients initiate agendas more often than doctors and it could happen at any stage of the visit, both parties can resist expanding the agenda, mostly in an indirect way, and agendas that contain more information with simpler turn-constructions are more likely to be well-addressed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Better quality of consultation was found when doctors sensitively detect the emotional change and the potential issues of the patients when they prevaricate to avoid the relevance of the previous infection. The findings also suggested that understanding the dynamics of agenda setting in consultations could lead to improvements in medical visit outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient and Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients and doctors in the study were colleagues in a university hospital. They were involved in various stages of this study to ensure it addresses real-world concerns and improves healthcare outcomes. Throughout data collection, patients contributed by allowing their consultations to be recorded and providing feedback on their experiences. Findings were discussed with a patient advisory group to ensure the interpretations aligned with patient perspectives. Doctors were also actively engaged in disseminating the results through later consultations, ensuring broad accessibility and practical application of the research outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"27 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70101\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70101\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70101","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Agenda Setting in Outpatient Consultation of Older Adults With Long-COVID
Introduction
Agenda setting in doctor–patient interaction refers to the process when various agendas are presented and responded to. This study revealed how Long-COVID (LC) agenda items are managed by older adults and doctors during outpatient consultations.
Methods
Based on audio recordings, we adopted Conversation Analysis (CA) to unveil under what circumstances the patient or the doctor set the agenda and how they collaboratively work to develop an LC topic. Data was transcribed in accordance with the transcription conventions developed by Jefferson.
Results
Agendas were divided into three categories, namely primary, additional, and unmet agenda items. LC agendas were identified with specific characteristics based on qualitative analysis and older adults tended to seek more medical assistance, particularly concerning their chronic diseases. We observed that patients initiate agendas more often than doctors and it could happen at any stage of the visit, both parties can resist expanding the agenda, mostly in an indirect way, and agendas that contain more information with simpler turn-constructions are more likely to be well-addressed.
Conclusions
Better quality of consultation was found when doctors sensitively detect the emotional change and the potential issues of the patients when they prevaricate to avoid the relevance of the previous infection. The findings also suggested that understanding the dynamics of agenda setting in consultations could lead to improvements in medical visit outcomes.
Patient and Public Contribution
Patients and doctors in the study were colleagues in a university hospital. They were involved in various stages of this study to ensure it addresses real-world concerns and improves healthcare outcomes. Throughout data collection, patients contributed by allowing their consultations to be recorded and providing feedback on their experiences. Findings were discussed with a patient advisory group to ensure the interpretations aligned with patient perspectives. Doctors were also actively engaged in disseminating the results through later consultations, ensuring broad accessibility and practical application of the research outcomes.
期刊介绍:
Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including:
• Person-centred care and quality improvement
• Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management
• Public perceptions of health services
• Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting
• Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation
• Empowerment and consumerism
• Patients'' role in safety and quality
• Patient and public role in health services research
• Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy
Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.