IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v266y2020ics0277953620305104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How and why children instigate talk in pediatric allergy consultations: A conversation analytic account

Author

Listed:
  • Jenkins, Laura
  • Hepburn, Alexa
  • MacDougall, Colin

Abstract

Involving children in their healthcare encounter is a national and international priority. While existing research has examined the ways in which children are recruited to participate in the consultation, no work has examined whether and how children instigate talk, and the extent to which their contributions are successful. This paper presents a conversation analysis of a selection of 10 out of 30 video recordings in which children aged 4–10 years instigate talk during consultations they attend with their parents/carers at a UK pediatric clinic. The analysis reveals for the first time that children do successfully instigate talk without being asked or selected in 22 episodes during their consultation with the doctor. Children most frequently address their parent/carer (16/22). They capitalize on specific contexts within the consultation to instigate talk, for example: history-taking questions about what they ate or how they reacted (10/22); or discussions surrounding the child's feelings or sensations following the skin-prick testing (7/22) - aspects of experience to which they have access. Children's non-solicited talk necessarily occurs when they are not currently active participators and children engage in extra interactional work including various verbal strategies (summons and prosodic variations) and non-verbal resources (tapping and gaze) to break into the interaction. The benefits of their contributions include the opportunity to affirm the child's role as a legitimate contributor, and the potential for additional medically-relevant information to arise which could enrich the clinical process. Our analysis shows that the previously overlooked phenomenon of children instigating talk, although not common, can play a crucial role in the consultation. We suggest that strategies to increase such involvement have the potential to augment the healthcare process. Our findings offer a critical baseline for the introduction of new consultations models, such as digital appointments, which may exclude some children completely.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenkins, Laura & Hepburn, Alexa & MacDougall, Colin, 2020. "How and why children instigate talk in pediatric allergy consultations: A conversation analytic account," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620305104
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620305104
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113291?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pilnick, Alison & Dingwall, Robert, 2011. "On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1374-1382, April.
    2. Kodjebacheva, Gergana Damianova & Sabo, Tina & Xiong, Janet, 2016. "Interventions to improve child-parent-medical provider communication: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 120-127.
    3. Allwood, Rebecca & Pilnick, Alison & O'Brien, Rebecca & Goldberg, Sarah & Harwood, Rowan H. & Beeke, Suzanne, 2017. "Should I stay or should I go? How healthcare professionals close encounters with people with dementia in the acute hospital setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 212-225.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Llanwarne, Nadia & Newbould, Jennifer & Burt, Jenni & Campbell, John L. & Roland, Martin, 2017. "Wasting the doctor's time? A video-elicitation interview study with patients in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 113-122.
    2. Murdoch, Jamie & Salter, Charlotte & Ford, John & Lenaghan, Elizabeth & Shiner, Alice & Steel, Nicholas, 2020. "The “unknown territory” of goal-setting: Negotiating a novel interactional activity within primary care doctor-patient consultations for patients with multiple chronic conditions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    3. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    4. Kath MacDonald & Lindesay Irvine & Margaret Coulter Smith, 2015. "An exploration of partnership through interactions between young ‘expert’ patients with cystic fibrosis and healthcare professionals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(23-24), pages 3528-3537, December.
    5. Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun & Kim Usher & Jane Mills, 2020. "Outsiders in the Experts’ World: A Grounded Theory Study of Consumers and the Social World of Health Care," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    6. Ayuandini, Sherria, 2017. "Finger Pricks and Blood Vials: How doctors medicalize ‘cultural’ solutions to demedicalize the ‘broken’ hymen in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 61-68.
    7. Toerien, Merran, 2021. "When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    8. Swinglehurst, Deborah, 2014. "Displays of authority in the clinical consultation: A linguistic ethnographic study of the electronic patient record," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 17-26.
    9. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    10. de Kok, B.C. & Widdicombe, S. & Pilnick, A. & Laurier, E., 2018. "Doing patient-centredness versus achieving public health targets: A critical review of interactional dilemmas in ART adherence support," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 17-25.
    11. Pilnick, Alison & O'Brien, Rebecca & Beeke, Suzanne & Goldberg, Sarah & Harwood, Rowan, 2021. "Avoiding repair, maintaining face: Responding to hard-to-interpret talk from people living with dementia in the acute hospital," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    12. Rosalind Waller & Michael Tholander & Doris Nilsson, 2017. "‘You Will Have These Ones!’: Six Women’s Experiences of Being Pressured to Make a Contraceptive Choice That Did Not Feel Right," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, September.
    13. Lian, Olaug S. & Nettleton, Sarah & Wifstad, Åge & Dowrick, Christopher, 2021. "Negotiating uncertainty in clinical encounters: A narrative exploration of naturally occurring primary care consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    14. Johnson, Blair T. & Acabchuk, Rebecca L., 2018. "What are the keys to a longer, happier life? Answers from five decades of health psychology research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 218-226.
    15. Smailhodzic, Edin & Boonstra, Albert & Langley, David J., 2021. "Social media enabled interactions in healthcare: Towards a taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    16. Tutton, Richard, 2012. "Personalizing medicine: Futures present and past," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1721-1728.
    17. O'Brien, Rebecca & Beeke, Suzanne & Pilnick, Alison & Goldberg, Sarah E & Harwood, Rowan H, 2020. "When people living with dementia say ‘no’: Negotiating refusal in the acute hospital setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    18. Caronia, Letizia & Saglietti, Marzia & Chieregato, Arturo, 2020. "Challenging the interprofessional epistemic boundaries: The practices of informing in nurse-physician interaction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    19. McArthur, Amanda, 2018. "Getting pain on the table in primary care physical exams," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 190-198.
    20. Sharon Ee Ling Quah & Alexandra Ridgway, 2022. "The woman writer's body: Multiplicity, neoliberalism, and feminist resistance," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 44-57, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620305104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.