Giving voice to the lifeworld. More humane, more effective medical care? A qualitative study of doctor-patient communication in general practice.

Mishler (The discourse of medicine. The dialectics of medical interviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex), applying Habermas's theory of Communicative Action to medical encounters. showed how the struggle between the voice of medicine and the voice of the lifeworld fragmented and suppressed patients' multi-faceted, contextualised and meaningful accounts. This paper investigates and critiques Mishler's premise that this results in inhumane, ineffective medical care. Using a more complex data collection strategy, comprising patient interviews, doctor interviews and transcribed consultations we show more complex relations than emerged from Mishler's analysis. We found four communication patterns across 35 general practice case studies. When doctor and patient both used the voice of medicine exclusively (acute physical complaints) this worked for simple unitary problems (Strictly Medicine). When both doctor and patient engaged with the lifeworld, more of the agenda was voiced (Mutual Lifeworld) and patients were recognised as unique human beings (psychological plus physical problems). Poorest outcomes occurred where patients used the voice of the lifeworld but were ignored (Lifeworld Ignored) or blocked (Lifeworld Blocked) by doctors' use of voice of medicine (chronic physical complaints). The analysis supports the premise that increased use of the lifeworld makes for better outcomes and more humane treatment of patients as unique human beings. Some doctors switched communication strategies in different consultations, which suggests that their behaviour might be open to change. If doctors could be sensitised to the importance of dealing with the concerns of the lifeworld for patients with chronic physical conditions as well as psychological conditions, it might be possible to obtain better care for patients. This would require attention to structural aspects of the healthcare system to enable doctors to work fully within the patient-centred model.

Patients' unvoiced agendas in general practice consultations: qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patients' agendas before consultation and to assess which aspects of agendas are voiced in the consultation and the effects of unvoiced agendas on outcomes. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: 20 general practices in south east England and the West Midlands. PARTICIPANTS: 35 patients consulting 20 general practitioners in appointment and emergency surgeries. RESULTS: Patients' agendas are complex and multifarious. Only four of 35 patients voiced all their agendas in consultation. Agenda items most commonly voiced were symptoms and requests for diagnoses and prescriptions. The most common unvoiced agenda items were: worries about possible diagnosis and what the future holds; patients' ideas about what is wrong; side effects; not wanting a prescription; and information relating to social context. Agenda items that were not raised in the consultation often led to specific problem outcomes (for example, major misunderstandings), unwanted prescriptions, non-use of prescriptions, and non-adherence to treatment. In all of the 14 consultations with problem outcomes at least one of the problems was related to an unvoiced agenda item. CONCLUSION: Patients have many needs and when these are not voiced they can not be addressed. Some of the poor outcomes in the case studies were related to unvoiced agenda items. This suggests that when patients and their needs are more fully articulated in the consultation better health care may be effected. Steps should be taken in both daily clinical practice and research to encourage the voicing of patients' agendas.

Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe misunderstandings between patients and doctors associated with prescribing decisions in general practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: 20 general practices in the West Midlands and south east England. PARTICIPANTS: 20 general practitioners and 35 consulting patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Misunderstandings between patients and doctors that have potential or actual adverse consequences for taking medicine. RESULTS: 14 categories of misunderstanding were identified relating to patient information unknown to the doctor, doctor information unknown to the patient, conflicting information, disagreement about attribution of side effects, failure of communication about doctor's decision, and relationship factors. All the misunderstandings were associated with lack of patients' participation in the consultation in terms of the voicing of expectations and preferences or the voicing of responses to doctors' decisions and actions. They were all associated with potential or actual adverse outcomes such as non-adherence to treatment. Many were based on inaccurate guesses and assumptions. In particular doctors seemed unaware of the relevance of patients' ideas about medicines for successful prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' participation in the consultation and the adverse consequences of lack of participation are important. The authors are developing an educational intervention that builds on these findings.

Doctor-patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making.

The traditional paternalistic model of medical decision-making, in which doctors make decisions on behalf of their patients, has increasingly come to be seen as outdated. Moreover, the role of the patient in the consultation has been emphasised, notably through the adoption of 'patient-centred' strategies. Models that promote patients' active involvement in the decision-making process about treatment have been developed. We examine one particular model of shared decision making [Charles, C., Gafni, A., Whelan, T, 1997. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine 44, 681-692.]. The model has four main characteristics. These are that (1) both the patient and the doctor are involved, (2) both parties share information, (3) both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment and (4) an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Focusing on the first two of the four characteristics of the model, we use the findings from a study of 62 consultations, together with interviews conducted with patients and general practitioners, to consider participation in the consultation in terms of sharing information about, and views of, medicines. We found little evidence that doctors and patients both participate in the consultation in this way. As a consequence there was no basis upon which to build a consensus about the preferred treatment and reach an agreement on which treatment to implement. Thus even the first two of the four conditions said to be necessary for shared decision making were not generally present in the consultations we studied. These findings were presented in feedback sessions with participating GPs, who identified a number of barriers to shared decision making, as well as expressing an interest in developing strategies to overcome these barriers.

Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research.

Reflexivity is often described as an individual activity. The authors propose that reflexivity employed as a team activity, through the sharing of reflexive writing (accounts of personal agendas, hidden assumptions, and theoretical definitions) and group discussions about arising issues, can improve the productivity and functioning of qualitative teams and the rigor and quality of the research. The authors review the literature on teamwork, highlighting benefits and pitfalls, and define and discuss the role for reflexivity. They describe their own team and detail how they work together on a project investigating doctor-patient communication about prescribing. The authors present two reflexive tools they have used and show through examples how they have influenced the effectiveness of their team in terms of process, quality, and outcome.

Induction of human tissue plasminogen activator in the mammary gland of transgenic goats.

Three transgenic females from a first generation transgenic male were induced to lactate between 11 and 12 months of age using a series of estrogen and progesterone injections. The milk contained human longer acting tissue plasminogen activator (LAtPA) at comparable concentrations (1-3 mg/ml) as occurred in the original founder female. In addition, the transgenic male was induced with a hormonal regime and was shown to produce 0.85 mg/ml of LAtPA. Milk protein gels indicated that the milk products (casein, IgG) were essentially normal. These experiments show that expression data for this vector can be evaluated in a shorter period of time in dairy goats than would be required through normal gestation and lactation schedules and can be used to identify the relative expression of transgenes in mammary tissue that would occur during normal lactation.