Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results
General practice consultation has often been characterized by pragma-dialecticians as an argumentative activity type. These characterizations are typically derived from theoretical insights and qualitative analyses. Yet, descriptions that are based on quantitative data are thus far lacking. This paper provides a detailed account of the development of an instrument to guide the quantitative analysis of argumentation in doctor–patient consultation. It describes the implementation and preliminary results of a content analysis of seventy videotaped medical consultations of which the extent and type of doctors’ argumentative support for medical opinions and advice are analyzed. Based on the study results, this paper addresses the merits of observational studies using content analysis as a method for the analysis of argumentative discourse in context as well as some of its key challenges and limitations, laying bare the opportunities for future research.
KeywordsGeneral practice consultation Argumentative activity type Pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation Quantitative methods Content analysis
- Elwyn, G., A. Edwards, K. Hood, M. Robling, M. Wensing, and R. Grol. 2005. OPTION training pack. Evaluating the extent that clinicians involve patients in decisions. http://www.optioninstrument.com/training-pack.php.
- Herring, J. 2009. Medical law, 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Krippendorff, K. 2004. Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research 30(3): 411–433.Google Scholar
- Krippendorff, K. 2013. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Labrie, N.H.M. 2012. Strategic maneuvering in treatment decision-making discussions: Two cases in point. Argumentation 26(2): 171–199.Google Scholar
- Labrie, N.H.M. 2013. Strategically eliciting concessions from patients in treatment decision-making discussions. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(3): 322–341.Google Scholar
- Labrie, N.H.M., and P.J. Schulz. 2013. Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor-patient communication. Health Communication 29(10): 996–1008.Google Scholar
- Labrie, N.H.M., P.J. Schulz, and S. Zurbriggen. under revision. The effects of reasoned shared decision-making on consultation outcomes: Results of a randomized-controlled experiment among a student population. Journal of Communication in Healthcare: Strategies, Media and Engagement in Global Health.Google Scholar
- Lasswell, H.D., D. Lerner, and I. Pool. 1952. The comparative study of symbols: An introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Neuendorf, K.A. 2002. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Noordman, J., B. Koopmans, J. C. Korevaar, T. van der Weijden, and S. van Dulmen. 2012. Exploring lifestyle counseling in routine primary care consultations: The professionals’ role. Family Practice. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cms077.
- Pilgram, R. 2009. Argumentation in doctor–patient interaction: Medical consultation as a pragma-dialectical communicative activity type. Studies in Communication Sciences 92: 153–169.Google Scholar
- Van Eemeren, F.H. 1986. For reason’s sake: Maximal argumentative analysis of discourse. In Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard, 201–216. Dordrecht: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- van Eemeren, F.H. 2012. From critical discussion to strategic manoeuvring: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. In Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation and rhetoric, ed. R.K. Bakó, K. Bernáth, E. Biró-Kaszás, I. Györgyjakab, and G. Horváth. Oradea: Partium Press.Google Scholar
- van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar