School of Communication, Center for Communication, Health, & the Public Good, San Diego State University, USA; Department of Surgery, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, USA; Social Science & Medicine, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2024 Aug;354:117071. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117071. Epub 2024 Jun 26.
Video recordings of oncology interviews reveal how doctors rely on worry to establish medical expertise, facilitate treatment decision-making, and construct worry parameters to help patients understand whether there is a reasonable need for worry or not. Doctors express worry as frequently as cancer patients during oncology interviews, but they face a dilemma: how to provide care for cancer patients without directly stating they are worried about them? Plausible explanations are offered for why doctors do not state personal worries. Conversation analytic methods were employed to identify how doctors rely on worry to achieve distinct social actions. Four worry formulations are examined: (1) variations of "we worry" (and at times, non-specific and second person "you"), (2) hypothetical worry scenarios, (3) dismissing worry and offering assurance, and (4) doctors claiming they are not worried, bothered, or alarmed. Doctors align with and speak for the professionals and institutions they represent, expressing collective worries and claiming the legitimate right to worry (or not). Doctors also avoid abandoning patients to their own decision-making, yet do not formulate worry to coerce deference or dictate patients' choices. In all cases patients agreed and displayed minimal resistance to doctors' worry formulations. These findings contribute to ongoing work across institutional settings where participants have been shown to construct objective, legitimate claims meriting worries about diverse problems. Work is underway to examine when and how patients explicitly raise and doctors respond to cancer worries. Clinical implications are raised for how doctors can use worry to legitimize best treatment options, help patients minimize their worries, rely on hypothetical scenarios allowing patients to compare how other patients managed their cancer, and not dismiss the importance of minimizing the need to worry as a resource for offering reassurance.
肿瘤学访谈的视频记录揭示了医生如何依靠担忧来建立医学专业知识,促进治疗决策,并构建担忧参数,以帮助患者了解是否有合理的担忧理由。在肿瘤学访谈中,医生表达担忧的频率与癌症患者一样高,但他们面临着一个困境:如何在不直接表达对患者担忧的情况下为癌症患者提供护理?对于医生为何不表达个人担忧,提出了一些合理的解释。采用会话分析方法来确定医生如何依靠担忧来实现不同的社会行为。研究了四种担忧表达形式:(1)“我们担心”(有时是非特定的第二人称“你”)的变体,(2)假设性的担忧情景,(3)消除担忧并提供保证,以及(4)医生声称他们不担心、不烦恼或不担心。医生与他们所代表的专业人士和机构保持一致,并为他们发言,表达集体担忧,并声称有权(或不)担忧。医生还避免将患者置于自己的决策之中,但不会通过表达担忧来强制顺从或决定患者的选择。在所有情况下,患者都表示同意,对医生的担忧表达表现出最小的抵触。这些发现为跨机构环境中的持续工作做出了贡献,在这些环境中,参与者被证明构建了客观的、合法的主张,值得对各种问题表示担忧。目前正在研究患者何时以及如何明确提出癌症担忧,以及医生如何做出回应。对于医生如何利用担忧来使最佳治疗方案合法化、帮助患者减轻担忧、依靠假设情景让患者比较其他患者如何管理癌症,以及不忽视减轻担忧需求的重要性作为提供保证的资源等问题,提出了临床意义。