Affiliations 

  • 1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. [email protected]
  • 2 Primary Healthcare Research Unit, Health Sciences Centre, Memorial University, 300 Prince Philip Drive, St. John's, NL, A1B 3V6, Canada
  • 3 Department of English Language, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 4 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
  • 5 School of Social Sciences, Brockington Building, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE 11 3TU, UK
  • 6 Bodleian Health Care Libraries, Knowledge Centre, ORC Research Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK
  • 7 Department of Computer Science, Human Centred Computing (HCC) Group, University of Oxford, 39a St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LW, UK
BMC Fam Pract, 2019 08 03;20(1):111.
PMID: 31376830 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-019-0992-x

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines exhort clinicians to encourage patients to improve their health behaviours. However, most offer little support on how to have these conversations in practice. Clinicians fear that health behaviour change talk will create interactional difficulties and discomfort for both clinician and patient. This review aims to identify how healthcare professionals can best communicate with patients about health behaviour change (HBC).

METHODS: We included studies which used conversation analysis or discourse analysis to study recorded interactions between healthcare professionals and patients. We followed an aggregative thematic synthesis approach. This involved line-by-line coding of the results and discussion sections of included studies, and the inductive development and hierarchical grouping of descriptive themes. Top-level themes were organised to reflect their conversational positioning.

RESULTS: Of the 17,562 studies identified through systematic searching, ten papers were included. Analysis resulted in 10 top-level descriptive themes grouped into three domains: initiating; carrying out; and closing health behaviour change talk. Of three methods of initiation, two facilitated further discussion, and one was associated with outright resistance. Of two methods of conducting behaviour change talk, one was associated with only minimal patient responses. One way of closing was identified, and patients did not seem to respond to this positively. Results demonstrated a series of specific conversational practices which clinicians use when talking about HBC, and how patients respond to these. Our results largely complemented clinical guidelines, providing further detail on how they can best be delivered in practice. However, one recommended practice - linking a patient's health concerns and their health behaviours - was shown to receive variable responses and to often generate resistance displays.

CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviour change talk is smoothly initiated, conducted, and terminated by clinicians and this rarely causes interactional difficulty. However, initiating conversations by linking a person's current health concern with their health behaviour can lead to resistance to advice, while other strategies such as capitalising on patient initiated discussions, or collaborating through question-answer sequences, may be well received.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications