Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Victoria Land²  Ruth H Parry¹ 

[1] Sue Ryder Centre for the Study of Supportive, Palliative and End of Life Care, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK;Independent Researcher, York, UK

关键词: Methodology;    Quality appraisal;    Healthcare;    Discourse analysis;    Conversation analysis;    Systematic review;   

Others  :  1109712
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-69

 received in 2012-11-21, accepted in 2013-05-06,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Healthcare delivery is largely accomplished in and through conversations between people, and healthcare quality and effectiveness depend enormously upon the communication practices employed within these conversations. An important body of evidence about these practices has been generated by conversation analysis and related discourse analytic approaches, but there has been very little systematic reviewing of this evidence.

Methods

We developed an approach to reviewing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research through the following procedures:

• reviewing existing systematic review methods and our own prior experience of applying these

• clarifying distinctive features of conversation analytic and related discursive work which must be taken into account when reviewing

• holding discussions within a review advisory team that included members with expertise in healthcare research, conversation analytic research, and systematic reviewing

• attempting and then refining procedures through conducting an actual review which examined evidence about how people talk about difficult future issues including illness progression and dying

Results

We produced a step-by-step guide which we describe here in terms of eight stages, and which we illustrate from our ‘Review of Future Talk’. The guide incorporates both established procedures for systematic reviewing, and new techniques designed for working with conversation analytic evidence.

Conclusions

The guide is designed to inform systematic reviews of conversation analytic and related discursive evidence on specific domains and topics. Whilst we designed it for reviews that aim at informing healthcare practice and policy, it is flexible and could be used for reviews with other aims, for instance those aiming to underpin research programmes and projects. We advocate systematically reviewing conversation analytic and related discursive findings using this approach in order to translate them into a form that is credible and useful to healthcare practitioners, educators and policy-makers.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Parry and Land; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Parry R, Land V, Seymour J: Communicating face-to-face about sensitive future matters including end of life: a systematic review of evidence from fine-grained observational research [abstract]. Palliat Med 2012, 26:539.
• [2]Barnett-Page E, Thomas J: Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009, 9:59. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Petticrew M, Roberts H: Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. New York: John Wiley; 2006.
• [4]Higgins J, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0: The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org webcite
• [5]Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York: Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD; 2009. [http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf webcite]
• [6]Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J (Eds): An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. London: Sage; 2012.
• [7]Nowak P: Synthesis of qualitative linguistic research—A pilot review integrating and generalizing findings on doctor–patient interaction. Patient Educ Couns 2011, 82:429-441.
• [8]Briner R, Denyer D: Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-based Management. Edited by Rousseau D. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
• [9]Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Hsu R, Katbamna S, Olsen R, Smith L: Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Ring N, Ritchie K, Mandava L, Jepson R: A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland; 2010. [https://www.dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/3205/1/HTA_MethodsofSynthesisingQualitativeLiterature_DEC10%5B1%5D.pdf webcite]
• [11]Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P: Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 2003, 14:407-222.
• [12]Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K: Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10(Suppl 1):21-34.
• [13]Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Lillie E, Perrier L, Horsley T, Welch V, Cogo E, Antony J, Straus SE: What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12(1):114. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Haskard Zolnierek K, DiMatteo M: Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Medical Care 2009, 47(8):826-834.
• [15]Stewart M: Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Can Med Assoc J 1995, 152(9):1423-1433.
• [16]Stivers T, Mondada L, Steensig J: The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
• [17]Tomasello M: The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches To Language Structure. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003.
• [18]Heritage J, Maynard D: Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
• [19]Beach W: Between Dad and Son: initiating, delivering, and assimilating bad cancer news. Health Commun 2002, 14(3):271-298.
• [20]Sterponi L: Account episodes in family discourse: the making of morality in everyday interaction. Discourse Studies 2003, 5(1):79-100.
• [21]Jones A: Creating history: documents and patient participation in nurse-patient interviews. Sociol Health Illn 2009, 31(6):907-923.
• [22]Peräkylä A, Antaki C, Vehviläinen S, Leudar I: Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
• [23]Parry R: Practitioners’ accounts for treatment actions and recommendations in physiotherapy: when do they occur, how are they structured, what do they do? Sociol Health Illn 2009, 31(6):835-853.
• [24]Koschmann T, LeBaron C, Goodwin C, Zemel A, Dunnington G: Formulating the triangle of doom. Gesture 2007, 7(1):97-122.
• [25]Hindmarsh J, Pilnick A: Knowing bodies: embodiment, teamwork and anaesthetic practice. Organ Stud 2005, 28(9):1395-1416.
• [26]Drew P: Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Talk at Work: Interaction in Instititional Settings. Edited by Drew P, Heritage J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992:470-520.
• [27]Garcia A: Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument. Am Sociol Rev 1991, 56(6):818-835.
• [28]Greatbatch D, Dingwall R: Talk and identity in divorce mediation. In Identities in Talk. Edited by Antaki C, Widdecombe S. London: Sage; 1998:121-132.
• [29]Hepburn A, Potter J: Designing the recipient: managing advice resistance in institutional settings. Soc Psychol Q 2011, 74(2):216-241.
• [30]Stokoe E: Overcoming barriers to mediation in intake calls to services: Research-based strategies for mediators. Mediation Digest 2012. [http://www.mediationdigest.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=4&Itemid webcite]
• [31]Potter J: Discourse analysis. In Handbook of Data Analysis. Edited by Hardy M, Bryman A. London: Sage; 2003:607-624.
• [32]Sidnell J, Stivers T: The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.
• [33]Edwards D, Potter J: Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. In Conversation and Cognition. Edited by te Molder H, Potter J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005:241-259.
• [34]Heath C: Embodied action: video and the analysis of social interaction. In Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. Edited by Silverman D. London: Sage; 2011:250-270.
• [35]Peräkylä A: Validity in research on naturally occuring social interaction. In Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. Edited by Silverman D. London: Sage; 2011:365-382.
• [36]Parry R: Video-based conversation analysis. In Sage Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research. Edited by Bourgeault I, DeVries R, Dingwall R. London: Sage; 2010:373-396.
• [37]ten Have P: Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. 4th edition. London: Sage; 1999:47-74.
• [38]Maynard DW: Bearing bad news in clinical settings. In Progress in Communication Sciences. Edited by Dervin B. New Jersey: Ablex; 1991:143-172.
• [39]Sorjonen M, Raevaara L, Haakana M, Tammi T, Peräkylä A: Lifestyle discussions in medical interviews. In Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Edited by Heritage J, Maynard D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006:340-378.
• [40]Gill VT, Pomerantz A, Denvir P: Pre‒emptive resistance: patients’ participation in diagnostic sense‒making activities. Sociol Health Illn 2010, 32(1):1-20.
• [41]West C: Coordinating closings in primary care visits: producing continuity of care. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 2006, 20:379-415.
• [42]Jefferson G: Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Edited by Lerner GH. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2004:13-31.
• [43]Clayman SE, Gill VT: Conversation analysis. In Handbook of Data Analysis. Edited by Hardy M, Bryman A. Beverly Hills: Sage; 2004:589-606.
• [44]Heritage J: Questioning in medicine. In ‘Why do you ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Edited by Freed A, Ehrlich S. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009:42-68.
• [45]Roulston K: Close encounters of the ‘CA’ kind: a review of literature analysing talk in research interviews. Qual Res 2006, 6(4):515-534.
• [46]Stivers T, Majid A: Questioning children: Interactional evidence of implicit bias in medical interviews. Soc Psychol Q 2007, 70(4):424-441.
• [47]Stokoe E: Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The ‘Conversation Analytic Role-play Method’. In Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. Edited by Antaki C. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
• [48]Sheon N, Lee S, Facente S: From questionnaire to conversation: a structural intervention to improve HIV test counselling. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 81:468-475.
• [49]Heritage J, Robinson J, Elliott M, Beckett M, Wilkes M: Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: the difference one word can make. J Gen Intern Med 2007, 22(10):1429-1433.
• [50]Mangione-Smith R, Stivers T, Elliott M, McDonald L, Heritage J: Online commentary during the physical examination: a communication tool for avoiding inappropriate antibiotic prescribing? Soc Sci Med 2003, 56:313-320.
• [51]Parry R, Land V, Seymour J: Communicating face-to-face about sensitive future matters including end of life: a systematic review of evidence from fine-grained observational research. PROSPERO; 2011. CRD42011001626 [http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42011001626 webcite]
• [52]Seymour J, French J, Richardson E: Dying matters: let’s talk about it. BMJ 2010, 341:646-648.
• [53]The General Medical Council: Treatment and care towards the end of life: good practice in decision making. Ethical Guidance. London: General Medical Council; 2010. [http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/end_of_life_care.asp webcite]
• [54]Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Nursing: End of Life Care Patient Charter - A charter for the care of people who are nearing the end of their life. 2011. [http://www.rcgp.org.uk/clinical-and-research/clinical-resources/~/media/Files/CIRC/CIRC_EOLCPatientCharter.ashx webcite]
• [55]Public Health Intelligence North East: ‘A Good Death’ Consultation: Full Research Findings. 2010. [http://www.phine.org.uk/uploads/doc/vid_8535_Full%20report%20with%20all%20appendices.pdf webcite]
• [56]Raijmakers N, van Zuylen L, Costantini M, Caraceni A, Clark J, De Simone G, Lundquist G, Voltz R, Ellershaw J, ven der Heide A, on behalf of OPCARE9: Issues and needs in end-of-life decision making: an international modified delphi study. Palliat Med 2011, 26(7):947-953.
• [57]Cherlin E, Fried T, Prigerson H, Schulman-Green D, Johnson-Hurzeler R, Bradley E: Communication between physicians and family caregivers about care at the end of life: When do disucsisons occur and what is said. J Palliat Med 2005, 8(6):1176-1185.
• [58]Peräkylä A: AIDS Counselling: Institutional interaction and clinical practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
• [59]Lutfey K, Maynard D: Bad news in oncology: how physician and patient talk about death and dying without using those words. Soc Psychol Q 1998, 61(4):321-341.
• [60]Parry R: Are interventions to enhance communication performance in allied health professionals effective and how should they be delivered? Direct and indirect evidence. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 73:186-195.
• [61]Toerien M, Brookes ST, Metcalfe C, de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Peters TJ, Sterne J, Donovan JL: A review of reporting of participant recruitment and retention in RCTs in six major journals. Trials 2009, 10(1):52. BioMed Central Full Text
• [62]Whiting P, Toerien M, de Salis I, Sterne JA, Dieppe P, Egger M, Fahey T: A review identifies and classifies reasons for ordering diagnostic tests. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60(10):981-989.
• [63]Bruinsma SM, Rietjens JAC, Seymour JE, Anquinet L, van der Heide A: The experiences of relatives with the practice of palliative sedation: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2012, 44(3):431-445.
• [64]Cox K, Bird L, Arthur A, Kennedy S, Pollock K, Kumar A, Stanton W, Seymour J: Public attitudes to death and dying in the UK: a review of published literature. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 2013, 3(1):37-45.
• [65]Drew P: Conversation analysis. In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Edited by Fitch K, Sanders R. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2005.
• [66]Toerien M, Shaw R, Duncan R, Reuber M: Offering patients choices: A pilot study of interactions in the seizure clinic. Epilepsy and Behaviour 2011, 20:312-320.
• [67]Parry R: Giving reasons for doing something now, or at some other time. Res Lang Soc Interact 2013, 46(2):105-124.
• [68]Dropbox file hosting service. http://www.dropbox.com webcite
• [69]Endnote Web Web based reference organiser. [https://www.myendnoteweb.com webcite]
• [70]Levinson SC: Pragmatics (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
• [71]Heritage J: Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Edited by Fitch K, Sanders R, Mahwah NJ. : Lawrence Erlbaum; 2005:103-148.
• [72]Greenhalgh T, Peacock R: Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 2005, 331:1064-1065.
• [73]Ethno/CA News: Information on Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis: Bibliographies. [http://www.paultenhave.nl/resource.htm webcite]
• [74]Languse – Internet forum for the discussion of issues relationg to research in language and social interaction. [http://www.lists.hum.aau.dk/mailman/listinfo/languse webcite]
• [75]Google Scholar website. [http://www.scholar.google.co.uk webcite]
• [76]Drummond A: Personal communication. Number of reviewers involved in selecting publications at different stages of a review; 2013.
• [77]Dixon-Woods M, Shaw R, Agarwal S, Smith J: The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care 2004, 13:223-225.
• [78]Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Edited by Higgins J, Green S. London: Wiley Blackwell; 2008:571-592.
• [79]Peräkylä A: Authority and accountability: the delivery of diagnosis in primary health care. Soc Psychol Q 1998, 61(4):301-320.
• [80]Curl T, Drew P: Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Res Lang Soc Interact 2008, 41(2):129-153.
• [81]Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Vomink J: Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [82]Morse J: Biased reflections: principles of sampling and analysis in qualitative inquiry. In Moving beyond effectiveness in evidence synthesis: Methodological issues in the synthesis of diverse sources of evidence. Edited by Popay J. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006:53-60.
• [83]Denzin N, Lincoln Y: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005:1-42.
• [84]Heritage J: Conversation analysis. In Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity Press; 1984:233-292.
• [85]Drew P, Chatwin J, Collins S: Conversation analysis: a method for research into interactions between patients and health-care professionals. Health Expect 2001, 4:58-70.
• [86]Schegloff EA: Analyzing single episodes of interaction: an exercise in conversation analysis. Soc Psychol Q 1987, 50(2):101-114.
• [87]Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux P, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151(4):W65-W94.
• [88]Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R: RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med 2013, 11(1):21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [89]Social Care Institute for Excellence: Using systematic reviews to improve social care. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence; 2003. [http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/reports/report04.pdf webcite]