Part process analysis: a qualitative method for studying provider

Abstract

Aims: Communication between patients and healthcare providers is vital for quality care. Complaints about doctors often arise from unfortunate communication. Research methods suited for the study of relationship and interaction are essential to understand how communication can be improved. The principles and procedures of a qualitative research method with the capacity to explore details and foundations of interaction between patients and doctors is presented. Methods: Anne-Lise Løvlie Schibbye's Part Process Analysis Method is a qualitative approach for studying communication at the micro-level. Attention is drawn both to verbal dialogue and to body communication, and the method is particularly suited for studying relationships and change. Results: The application of the Part Process Analysis Method is described, exemplified by material from a group discussion between participants and leaders in a group-based treatment programme for women with chronic muscle pain. How the method can be used to explore reciprocity, relationships, and development is demonstrated in this context. Conclusions: The Part Process Analysis Method is proposed as a useful tool for studying communication between doctor and patient, providing knowledge about relationships and reciprocity, aspects that are important both in doctors' medical work and for patients' feeling of being understood.

Keywords

communication professional—patient relationships primary health care qualitative evaluation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Neuwirth ZE An essential understanding of physician— patient communication. Part I. J Med Pract Management 1999; 15(1): 14—18.

Thornquist E. Profession and life: separate worlds. Soc Sci Med 1994; 39: 701—13.

Thornquist E. Musculoskeletal suffering: diagnosis and a variant view. Sociol Health Illn 1995; 17: 166—91.

Thornquist E. Body communication is a continuous process. The first encounter between patient and physiotherapist. Scand J Prim Health Care 1991; 9: 191—6.

Rudebeck CE The doctor, the patient and the body. Scand J Prim Health Care 2000; 18: 4—8.

Malterud K. Key questions — a strategy for modifying clinical communication. Scand J Prim Health Care 1994; 12: 121—7.

Malterud K. , Hollnagel H. Talking with women about personal health resources in general practice. Key questions about salutogenesis. Scand J Prim Health Care 1998; 16: 66—71.

Malterud K. The (gendered) construction of diagnosis: interpretation of medical signs in women patients. Theor Med 1999; 20: 275—86.

Lafferty A-L.

Utvikling av en kvalitativ metode til studiet av ektefelleinteraksjon. [The development of a qualitative method for the study of marital interaction.]

Nordisk Psykologi 1981; 33: 122—34 (in Norwegian, English summary).

10.

Løvlie A-L. Part process analysis: toward a new method for studying interaction. J Phenomenol Psychol 1982; 4: 261—73.

11.

Steihaug S. , Ahlsen B. , Malterud K. From exercise and education to movement and interaction. Treatment groups in primary care for women with chronic muscular pain. Scand J Prim Health Care 2001; 19: 249—54.

12.

Steihaug S. , Ahlsen B. , Malterud K. ``I am allowed to be myself'' — women with chronic muscular pain being recognized. Scand J Public Health: in press.

13.

Bae B. , Waastad JE Erkjennelse og anerkjennelse — en introduksjon. I: Bae B, Waastad JE (red) Erkjennelse og anerkjennelse, perspektiver på relasjon. [Acknowledgement and recognition — an introduction. In Bae B , Waastad JE , editors. Acknowledgement and recognition. Perspectives on relationships.] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1992 (in Norwegian).

14.

Bae B. Relasjon som vågestykke — læring om seg selv og andre. I: Bae B, Waasrad JE (red) Erkjennelse og anerkjennelse. Perspektiv på relasjoner. [Relationship as a hazard — learning about oneself and others. In: Bae B , Waastad JE , editors. Acknowledgement and recognition. Perspectives on relationships.] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1992 (in Norwegian).

15.

Inui TS , Carter WB Design issues in research on doctor— patient communication. In Stewart M , Roter D , editors. Communicating with medical patients. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989.

16.

Roter D. , Frankel R. Quantitative and qualitative approaches to the evaluation of the medical dialogue . Soc Sci Med 1992; 34 (10): 1097—1103.

17.

Waitzkin H. On studying the discourse of medical encounters. A critique of quantitative and qualitative methods and a proposal for reasonable compromise. Med Care 1990; 28(6): 473—88.

18.

Pittenger RE , Hockett CF , Danehy JJ The first five minutes. A sample of microscopic interview analysis. Ithaca, NY: Paul Mertineau, 1960 .

19.

Wynn R. Provider—patient interaction. A corpus-based study of doctor—patient and student—patient interaction. Doctor artium thesis, University of Bergen, 1998.

20.

Nessa J. Discourse analysis in general practice: a sociolinguistic approach. Fam Pract 1990; 7: 77—83.

21.

Nessa J. From a medical consultation to a written text, 1: Transcribing the doctor—patient dialogue. Scand J Prim Health Care 1995; 13: 83—8.

22.

Larsen KM , Smith CK Assessment of nonverbal communication in the patient—physician interview . J Fam Pract 1981; 12: 481—8.

23.

Smith CK , Larsen KM Sequential nonverbal behaviour in the patient—physician interview. J Fam Pract 1984; 18(2): 257—61.

24.

Heath C. Participation in the medical consultation: the co-ordination of verbal and nonverbal behaviour between the doctor and the patient. Sociol Health Illn 1984; 6 (3): 311—38.

25.

Suchman AL , Markakis K. , Beckman HB , Frankel R. A model of empathic communication in the medical interview. JAMA 1997; 277(8): 678—82.

26.

Arborelius E. , Bremberg S.

What does a human relationship with the doctor mean?

Scand J Prim Health Care 1992; 10: 163—9.

Part process analysis: a qualitative method for studying provider—patient interaction

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References