LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Mortari, Luigina; Pino, Marco (2014)
Publisher: Informa Healthcare
Journal: Disability and Rehabilitation
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: compliance, medication, mental health and illness, Communication, Research Paper, Therapeutic Community
Purpose In this article, we contribute to the debate on medication compliance by exploring the conversational “technologies” entailed in the process of promoting clients’ adherence to psychopharmacological prescriptions. Using a case study approach, we explore how medication-related problems are dealt with in conversational interaction between the staff members and the clients of a mental health Therapeutic Community (TC) in Italy. Method Four meetings between two staff members (Barbara and Massimo) and the clients of the TC were audio-recorded. The data were transcribed and analyzed using the method of Conversation Analysis. Results Barbara and Massimo recur to practices of topic articulation to promote talk that references the clients’ failure to take the medications. Through these practices they deal with the practical problem of mobilizing the clients’ cooperation in courses of action that fit into the institutional agenda of fostering medication adherence. Conclusions Barbara and Massimo’s conversational practices appear to reflect the assumption that medication-related problems can be reduced to compliance problems. This assumption works to make the clients accountable for their failure to take the medications while shaping a conversational environment that is unreceptive to their complaints about side effects. Implications for the understanding of mental health rehabilitation practice in TCs are discussed. Implications of Rehabilitation Therapeutic community staff members should be aware of the challenges and blocks in communicating with their clients. Therapeutic communities can promote staff members’ awareness of communication challenges through reflective workshops in which they can jointly view and comment on interaction with their clients. Reflective workshops can be used to raise awareness of the presuppositions underlying therapeutic community staff members’ communication practices.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Scheid-Cook TL. The validity of social control critiques: psychiatric medication, side effects and outpatient commitment. Sociol Focus 1991;24:59-77.
    • 2. National Institute of Mental Health. Mental Health Medications. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
    • 3. Barrett KE, Taylor DW, Pullo RE, Dunlap DA. The right to refuse medication: navigating the ambiguity. Psychiatr Rehabil J 1998;21: 241-9.
    • 4. Fisher DB. Comments on the article, ''The right to refuse medication: navigating the ambiguity''. Psychiatr Rehabil J 1998; 21:250-1.
    • 5. Gottstein JB. Psychiatrists' failure to inform: Is there substantial financial exposure? Ethic Human Psychol Psychiatry 2007;9: 117-25.
    • 6. Gomory T. The origins of coercion in assertive community treatment: a review of early publications from the special treatment unit of Mendota State Hospital. Ethic Human Sci Serv 2002;4:3-16.
    • 7. Brodwin P. The assemblage of compliance in psychiatric case management. Anthropol Med 2010;17:129-43.
    • 8. Sidnell J. Conversation analysis: an introduction. Malden (MA): Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
    • 9. Denman A, Wilkinson R. Applying conversation analysis to traumatic brain injury: investigating touching another person in everyday social interaction. Disabil Rehabil 2011;33:243-52.
    • 10. Svennevig J. The agenda as resource for topic introduction in workplace meetings. Discourse Stud 2012;14:53-66.
    • 5 1 / 6 1 / 6 0 n o p u o r G q c A s l a c i d o i r e P - m a h g n i t t o
    • 11. Jefferson G. On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In: Atkinson JM, Heritage J, eds. Structures of social action: studies of conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984:191-222.
    • 12. Button G, Casey N. Generating topic: the use of topic initial elicitors. In: Atkinson JM, Heritage J, eds. Structures of social action: studies of conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984:167-90.
    • 13. Pomerantz A. Telling my side: ''limited access'' as a ''fishing'' device. Sociol Inq 1980;3-4:186-98.
    • 14. Button G, Casey N. Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Stud 1985;8:3-55.
    • 15. Schegloff EA. Sequence organization in interaction: a primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
    • 16. Hutchby I. Resisting the incitement to talk in child counselling: aspects of the utterance 'I don't know'. Discourse Stud 2002;4: 147-68.
    • 17. Maynard DW. On clinicians co-implicating recipients' perspective in the delivery of diagnostic news. In: Drew P, Heritage J, eds. Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992:331-58.
    • 18. Koshik I. Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Stud 2003;5: 51-77.
    • 19. Heritage J, Sorjonen ML. Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: and-prefacing as a feature of question design. Lang Soc 1994;23:1-29.
    • 20. Raymond G. Prompting action: the stand-alone ''So'' in ordinary conversation. Res Lang Soc Interact 2004;37:185-218.
    • 21. Schegloff EA. Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. Am J Sociol 1992;97: 1295-345.
    • 22. Glick D, Applbaum K. Dangerous noncompliance: a narrative analysis of a CNN special investigation of mental illness. Anthropol Med 2010;17:229-44.
    • 23. McCabe R, Bullenkamp J, Hansson L, et al. The therapeutic relationship and adherence to antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia. PLoS One 2012;7:1-5.
    • 24. Jingree T, Finlay WML, Antaki C. Empowering words, disempowering actions: an analysis of interactions between staff members and people with learning disabilities in residents' meetings. J Intellect Disabil Res 2006;50:212-26.
    • 25. Maynard DW, Marlaire CL. Good reasons for bad testing performance: the interactional substrate of educational testing. Qual Sociol 1992;15:177-202.
    • 26. Parry R. A video analysis of how physiotherapists communicate with patients about errors of performance: insights for practice and policy. Physiotherapy 2005;91:204-14.
    • 27. Heritage J, Sefi S. Dilemmas of advice: aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and firsttime mothers. In: Drew P, Heritage J, eds. Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992:359-417.
    • 28. McCabe R, Heath C, Burns T, Priebe S. Engagement of patients with psychosis in the consultation: conversation analytic study. Br Med J 2002;325:1148-51.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article