Faculty of Information and Media Studies, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Qual Health Res. 2010 Jan;20(1):29-41. doi: 10.1177/1049732309355591. Epub 2009 Nov 25.
Communication for informed choice is particularly challenging in clinical settings such as direct-entry midwifery, where the care model embraces diverse therapies and forms of knowledge. We identified three discursive moves (explanation, invocation, and evaluation) that Ontario midwives and clients used in making claims about proposed interventions. The analysis was informed by an understanding of communication as an interactionally situated and socially constructed interpretive practice. Both midwives and women called on the authority of biomedical discourse, but they also turned to sources such as women's wisdom to support their cases. The flexible use of these moves afforded participants considerable latitude in accepting or rejecting forms of evidence as authoritative. However, strategies designed to empower clients in making choices could unintentionally serve to enhance the authority of the care provider. Talk about interventions brings into view both the knowledge systems and the broader relations within which regulated midwifery practice operates.
在直接入职的助产士等临床环境中,信息告知选择的沟通特别具有挑战性,因为这种护理模式包含了多种疗法和知识形式。我们确定了安大略省助产士和客户在提出干预建议时使用的三个话语策略(解释、援引和评价)。这一分析是基于对沟通作为一种互动的、社会构建的解释性实践的理解。助产士和女性都援引了生物医学话语的权威,但她们也求助于女性智慧等来源来支持自己的观点。这些策略的灵活运用使参与者在接受或拒绝某种形式的证据作为权威时有很大的回旋余地。然而,旨在赋予客户选择权的策略可能会无意中增强护理提供者的权威。关于干预的讨论揭示了监管助产士实践运作的知识体系和更广泛的关系。