The present study investigates the ways that members of society refer to time. Concrete methods for communicating about points in time and locating events in relation to them make relevant and thereby ground abstract time-reckoning in the lives of interactants. Through a taxonomy of references to time-termed absolute and event-relative, each with subcategorieswe describe the intrinsic affordances that different designs provide coparticipants engaging in social interaction. In analyzing talk from both ordinary and institutional contexts, we demonstrate how these affordances can be mobilized in the co-construction and maintenance of intersubjectivity, in managing interpersonal relationships, and in conjunction with a variety of social actions. By describing how sociotemporal ordering is invoked, put into use, and contextually achieved in the immediacy of quotidian conduct, we posit that time-reckoning categories are social not only in their construction but also in their everyday use.

Background Agenda setting is associated with more efficient care and better patient experience. This study develops a taxonomy of visit opening styles to assess use of agenda and non-agenda setting visit openings and their effects on participant experience. Methods This observational study analyzed 83 video recorded US primary care visits at a single academic medical center in California involving family medicine and internal medicine resident physicians (n = 49) and patients (n = 83) with chronic pain on opioids. Using conversation analysis, we developed a coding scheme that assessed the presence of agenda setting, distinct visit opening styles, and the number of total topics, major topics, surprise patient topics, and returns to prior topics discussed. Exploratory quantitative analyses were conducted to assess the relationship of agenda setting and visit opening styles with post-visit measures of both patient experience and physician perception of visit difficulty. Results We identified 2 visit opening styles representing agenda setting (agenda eliciting, agenda reframing) and 3 non-agenda setting opening styles (open-ended question, patient launch, physician launch). Agenda setting was only performed in 11% of visits and was associated with fewer surprise patient topics than visits without agenda setting (mean (SD) 2.67 (1.66) versus 4.28 (3.23), p = 0.03). Conclusions In this study of patients with chronic pain, resident physicians rarely performed agenda setting, whether defined in terms of “agenda eliciting” or “agenda re-framing.” Agenda setting was associated with fewer surprise topics. Understanding the communication context and outcomes of agenda setting may inform better use of this communication tool in primary care  practice.

Background Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable cancer with complex treatment options. Trusting patient–clinician relationships are essential to promote effective shared decision‐making that aligns best clinical practices with patient values and preferences. This study sought to shed light on the development of trust between MM patients and clinicians. Methods Nineteen individual semi‐structured interviews were conducted with MM patients within 2 years of initial diagnosis or relapse for this qualitative study. Interviews were recorded and transcripts were coded thematically. Results We identified three main themes: (1) externally validated trust describes patients’ predisposition to trust or distrust clinicians based on factors outside of patient–clinician interactions; (2) internally validated trust describes how patients develop trust based on interactions with specific clinicians. Internally validated trust is driven primarily by clinician communication practices that demonstrate competence, responsiveness, listening, honesty, and empathy; and (3) trust in relation to shared decision‐making describes how patients relate the feeling of trust, or lack thereof, to the process of shared decision‐making. Conclusion Many factors contribute to the development of trust between MM patients and clinicians. While some are outside of clinicians’ control, others derive from clinician behaviors and interpersonal communication skills. These findings suggest the possibility that trust can be enhanced through communication training or shared decision‐making tools that emphasize relational communication. Given the important role trust plays in shared decision‐making, clinicians working with MM patients should prioritize establishing positive, trusting relationships.

No abstract