Patients’ Interpersonal Communication Experiences in the Context of Type 2 Diabetes Care

Abstract

The aim of our study is to determine the relational communication characteristics of professional-patient communication situations that have either facilitated or impeded patients' self-management. Conducted from the perspective of Finnish patients in the context of type 2 diabetes care, we used as our research methods an open e-survey and semistructured interviews. Data were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis. The critical incident technique was utilized throughout in all these methods. The results show that both positive and negative experiences described by patients were connected to four multidimensional relational communication characteristics: (a) building trust in the other party in the professional-patient relationship, (b) willingness to communicate, (c) emotional presence, and (d) appropriateness. Although the findings support the recommendations of earlier studies concerning individually tailored patient-centered care, acknowledging the characteristics in question can be used as a communication frame for constructing significant care relationships from the perspective of patients' self-management.

Patient Self-worth and Communication Barriers to Trust of Israeli Patients in Acute-Care Physicians at Public General Hospitals

“…Two participants concluded, “Physicians don’t listen any more, they don’t listen”; “They don’t listen to us. I can’t even fathom what they do to old people or to people who don’t think straight.” Principle anecdotes across narratives of participants highlight PCC elements that physicians may adopt not only to construct significant care relationships (Peltola, Isotalus, & Åstedt-Kurki, 2018) but also to preserve the self-worth of patients in acute care. Elements of PCC were acknowledgment of the patients’ crisis, attentive listening while according face and body language to context and content, realizing patients’ authority to choose treatment, applying universal empathy, and avoiding communication messages that further decrease patients’ self-worth by medical professionalism.…”

Public Expressions of Trust and Distrust in Governmental Dietary Advice in Sweden

“…With the increasing individualization of health as a personal responsibility (Crawford, 2006), people do not perceive “universal” dietary guidelines as applicable to their own individual cases, and instead seek the personalized diet that is “best” for them (Niva, 2007). Likewise, in the context of the clinician-patient relationship in Finnish diabetes care, trust has also been related to the understanding of personal needs and experiences (Peltola, Isotalus, & Åstedt-Kurki, 2018). Promoting a “dietetic individualism” (Huovila & Saikkonen, 2016) which relies on personal understandings of healthy eating, self-styled lay experts now use scientific or quasi-scientific discourses, alongside stories of their lived experience, to establish credibility (Huovila & Saikkonen, 2016; Jauho, 2016).…”

The Critical Incident Technique: Method or Methodology?

“…What are positive and negative interpersonal communication experiences, with doctors and nurses, which either facilitated or impeded the self-management of diabetes type 2 patients? (Peltola et al, 2018)…”

“…Today, the tool has been used in a large variety of qualitative studies in the dental sciences (FitzGerald et al, 2008; Santha et al, 2016), nursing sciences (Bradbury-Jones & Tranter, 2008; Clark, Lewis, Bradshaw, & Bradbury-Jones, 2018; Kemppainen, 2000), primary care (Redpath, Stacey, Pugh, & Holmes, 1997; Robinson, Stacy, Spencer, & Bhopal, 1995), sexual health care (Clark et al, 2018), hospital care (Runeson, Enskar, Elander, & Hermeren, 2001; Stålberg, Sandberg, & Söderbäck, 2018; Wendt, Fridlund, & Lidell, 2004), health care management (Amati, Kaissi, & Hannawa, 2018), and to research challenges in conducting health research (Getrich, Bennett, Sussman, Solares, & Helitzer, 2016). It has been used to explore both the views of patients (Björklund & Fridlund, 1999; Peltola, Isotalus, & Åstedt-Kurki, 2018; Redfern & Norman, 1999a, 1999b; Wendt et al, 2004) and of service providers on the quality of provided care (Amati et al, 2018; Griggs, 2010; Redfern & Norman, 1999a, 1999b; Redpath et al, 1997; Runeson et al, 2001; Stålberg et al, 2018).…”