Cargando…

Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide

BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery is largely accomplished in and through conversations between people, and healthcare quality and effectiveness depend enormously upon the communication practices employed within these conversations. An important body of evidence about these practices has been generated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Parry, Ruth H, Land, Victoria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3674894/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23721181
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-69
_version_ 1782272423861682176
author Parry, Ruth H
Land, Victoria
author_facet Parry, Ruth H
Land, Victoria
author_sort Parry, Ruth H
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery is largely accomplished in and through conversations between people, and healthcare quality and effectiveness depend enormously upon the communication practices employed within these conversations. An important body of evidence about these practices has been generated by conversation analysis and related discourse analytic approaches, but there has been very little systematic reviewing of this evidence. METHODS: We developed an approach to reviewing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research through the following procedures: • reviewing existing systematic review methods and our own prior experience of applying these • clarifying distinctive features of conversation analytic and related discursive work which must be taken into account when reviewing • holding discussions within a review advisory team that included members with expertise in healthcare research, conversation analytic research, and systematic reviewing • attempting and then refining procedures through conducting an actual review which examined evidence about how people talk about difficult future issues including illness progression and dying RESULTS: We produced a step-by-step guide which we describe here in terms of eight stages, and which we illustrate from our ‘Review of Future Talk’. The guide incorporates both established procedures for systematic reviewing, and new techniques designed for working with conversation analytic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The guide is designed to inform systematic reviews of conversation analytic and related discursive evidence on specific domains and topics. Whilst we designed it for reviews that aim at informing healthcare practice and policy, it is flexible and could be used for reviews with other aims, for instance those aiming to underpin research programmes and projects. We advocate systematically reviewing conversation analytic and related discursive findings using this approach in order to translate them into a form that is credible and useful to healthcare practitioners, educators and policy-makers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3674894
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36748942013-06-07 Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide Parry, Ruth H Land, Victoria BMC Med Res Methodol Correspondence BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery is largely accomplished in and through conversations between people, and healthcare quality and effectiveness depend enormously upon the communication practices employed within these conversations. An important body of evidence about these practices has been generated by conversation analysis and related discourse analytic approaches, but there has been very little systematic reviewing of this evidence. METHODS: We developed an approach to reviewing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research through the following procedures: • reviewing existing systematic review methods and our own prior experience of applying these • clarifying distinctive features of conversation analytic and related discursive work which must be taken into account when reviewing • holding discussions within a review advisory team that included members with expertise in healthcare research, conversation analytic research, and systematic reviewing • attempting and then refining procedures through conducting an actual review which examined evidence about how people talk about difficult future issues including illness progression and dying RESULTS: We produced a step-by-step guide which we describe here in terms of eight stages, and which we illustrate from our ‘Review of Future Talk’. The guide incorporates both established procedures for systematic reviewing, and new techniques designed for working with conversation analytic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The guide is designed to inform systematic reviews of conversation analytic and related discursive evidence on specific domains and topics. Whilst we designed it for reviews that aim at informing healthcare practice and policy, it is flexible and could be used for reviews with other aims, for instance those aiming to underpin research programmes and projects. We advocate systematically reviewing conversation analytic and related discursive findings using this approach in order to translate them into a form that is credible and useful to healthcare practitioners, educators and policy-makers. BioMed Central 2013-05-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3674894/ /pubmed/23721181 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-69 Text en Copyright © 2013 Parry and Land; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Correspondence
Parry, Ruth H
Land, Victoria
Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide
title Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide
title_full Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide
title_fullStr Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide
title_full_unstemmed Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide
title_short Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide
title_sort systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3674894/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23721181
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-69
work_keys_str_mv AT parryruthh systematicallyreviewingandsynthesizingevidencefromconversationanalyticandrelateddiscursiveresearchtoinformhealthcarecommunicationpracticeandpolicyanillustratedguide
AT landvictoria systematicallyreviewingandsynthesizingevidencefromconversationanalyticandrelateddiscursiveresearchtoinformhealthcarecommunicationpracticeandpolicyanillustratedguide