Interpretative repertoires that shape low-income African American women's reproductive health care seeking: "don't want to know" and "taking charge of your health".

In the context of reproductive and sexual health, African American women have higher incidence of disease and poorer outcomes on key indicators when compared with White women. In this study, we used discourse analysis to identify and examine the workings of two clusters of interpretive resources ("interpretative repertoires") associated with reproductive/sexual health care seeking among low-income African American women who participated in semistructured interviews as part of a health promotion initiative. Interpretative repertoires are ways of accounting for engaging in or refraining from engaging in actions, which are shared by people in a community. We labeled the two interpretative repertoires "Don't Want to Know," and "Take Charge of Your Health." Within the "Don't Want to Know" repertoire, that testing would lead to threatening findings was assumed, a chain of devastating consequences was imagined, and a preference for uncertainty over certain knowledge was expressed. Conversely, the "Take Charge of Your Health" repertoire valued certainty over uncertainty, though in both interpretive frameworks, knowledge-based and emotion-based decision-making were intertwined. We conclude that health promotion initiatives--if they are to succeed in encouraging women to obtain valuable preventive health care services--must respond, in their choices of language and outreach strategies, to the expressed dilemma of wishing for reassurance but fearing bad news, to the intertwining of emotional reasoning and technorationality in health decision making, and to the particular relational experiences of African American women. Failure to do so will contribute to the continuation of reproductive and sexual health disparities.

Pre-emptive resistance: patients' participation in diagnostic sense-making activities.

In medical clinic visits, patients do more than convey information about their symptoms and problems so doctors can diagnose and treat them. Patients may also show how they have made sense of their health problems and may press doctors to interpret their problems in certain ways. Using conversation analysis, we analyse a practice patients use early in the medical visit to show that relatively benign or commonplace interpretations of their symptoms are implausible. In this practice, which we term pre-emptive resistance, patients raise candidate explanations for their symptoms and then report circumstances that undermine these explanations. By raising candidate explanations on their own and providing evidence against them, patients call for doctors to restrict the range of diagnostic hypotheses they might otherwise consider. However, the practice does not compel doctors to transparently indicate whether they will do so. Patients also display their ability to recognise and weigh the evidence for common, easily remedied causes of their symptoms. By presenting evidence against them, they show doctors the relevance of more serious diagnostic interpretations without pressing for them outright.

A qualitative analysis of a significant barrier to organ and tissue donation: receiving less-than-optimal medical care.

A key reason for the shortage of transplantable organs and tissue in the United States is the degree of resistance among the public to donating organs and tissue after death. In this article, we explore a single barrier to donation: the concern that medical personnel might provide "less-than-optimal" care to intended donors. Using 2 qualitative methodologies-analysis of family discussions about donation and analysis of in-depth interviews about donation-we explore what participants' discourse reveals about the variations and texture of this concern. The analysis revealed 4 aspects of this concern: (a) Participants expressed different versions of less-than-optimal care, each reflecting different assumptions about how medical personnel may approach the treatment of potential donors. (b) Participants expressed their concerns by describing hypothetical scenarios of medical treatment. These scenarios were designed to play up the plausibility of receiving less-than-optimal care and situated the speaker as the victim in the scenario. (c) Participants' uncertainty about the quality of medical treatment was sufficient grounds for not donating. (d) Participants expressed their concerns about medical treatment in terms of the perceived corruptibility of sociocultural institutions, including medical institutions. This analysis also revealed the lines of reasoning through which participants overcame a concern about receiving less-than-optimal-care. In our view, the most promising line of reasoning expressed by participants was to trust the legal and procedural protections built into the recovery process.