Meeuwesen Ludwien, Tromp Fred, Schouten Barbara C, Harmsen Johannes A M
Utrecht University, Interdisciplinary Social Science Department, Research School Psychology and Health, P.O. Box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Jul;67(1-2):183-90. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.013. Epub 2007 Apr 30.
Consultations of ethnic-minority patients tend to result in poor mutual understanding between doctor and patient, which may have serious consequences for health care. For good communication, physicians have strong devices at their disposal to manage the information, such as agenda-setting and structuring the interview into segments. What are the cultural differences in the managing of information in medical conversation? What is the relation with level of mutual understanding?
Data of 103 transcripts of video-registered medical interviews (56 non-Western and 47 Dutch patients) were sequentially analysed, focusing on relevant segments of the medical interview (medical history, diagnosis and conclusion) and on agenda-setting.
Physicians set the agenda and lead the conversation firmly forward, while a considerable number of patients (mainly Dutch) 'put on the brakes'. The majority of the medical conversations was traditional (37%) or cooperative (37%), while another 25% was more or less conflicting or complaintive in nature. Interviews of ethnic-minority patients were mostly traditional or cooperative, while Dutch patients showed a variety of types, especially in cases of poor mutual understanding. Further, conversational symmetry between patient and physician has increased over the years, due to the importance attached to patient autonomy.
Physicians receive different conversational clues from Dutch and ethnic-minority patients in case of poor mutual understanding.
This points to the necessity for physicians as well as patients to become culturally competent.
少数民族患者的会诊往往导致医患之间缺乏相互理解,这可能对医疗保健产生严重后果。为了实现良好的沟通,医生有强大的手段来管理信息,比如设定议程以及将问诊结构化。在医疗对话中,信息管理方面的文化差异有哪些?它与相互理解程度有何关系?
对103份视频记录的医疗问诊记录(56名非西方患者和47名荷兰患者)的数据进行顺序分析,重点关注医疗问诊的相关部分(病史、诊断和结论)以及议程设定。
医生设定议程并坚定地推动对话进行,而相当多的患者(主要是荷兰患者)“踩刹车”。大多数医疗对话是传统型(37%)或合作型(37%),而另外25%或多或少具有冲突性或抱怨性。少数民族患者的问诊大多是传统型或合作型,而荷兰患者则呈现出多种类型,尤其是在相互理解较差的情况下。此外,由于重视患者自主权,多年来医患之间的对话对称性有所增加。
在相互理解较差的情况下,医生从荷兰患者和少数民族患者那里得到不同的对话线索。
这表明医生和患者都有必要具备文化能力。