Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


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.


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


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Robson, C.; Drew, P.; Reuber, M. (2016)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Purpose: This study explored contributions that patients' companions (seizure witnesses) make to interactions in the seizure clinic and whether the nature of the companions' interactional contributions can help with the differentiation of epilepsy and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES).\ud \ud Methods: Conversation analysis methods were used to examine video recordings and transcripts of neurologists' interactions with patients referred to a specialist seizure clinic and their companions.\ud \ud Results: The companions' behavior correlated with interactional features previously observed to distinguish patients with epilepsy from patients with PNES. Patients with PNES, but not those with epilepsy, tended to exhibit interactional resistance to the doctor's efforts to find out more about their seizure experiences and, thereby, encouraged greater interactional contribution from companions.\ud \ud Conclusion: The contributions that companions make (in part, prompted by patient's interactional behavior) may provide additional diagnostic pointers in this clinical setting, and a number of candidate features that may help clinicians distinguish between epilepsy and PNES when the patient is accompanied by a seizure witness are described.\ud \ud However, companion contributions may limit the doctor's ability to identify linguistic and interactional features with previously demonstrated diagnostic potential in the conversational contributions made by patients themselves. To help offset potential diagnostic losses, doctors may need to explicitly discuss the role of the companion in the consultation when a seizure witness (or another companion) accompanies the patient.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] M. Schwabe, M. Reuber, M. Schoendienst, E. Guelich, Listening to people with seizures: how can linguistic analysis help in the differential diagnosis of seizure disorders?, Comm Med. 5, 2008, 59-72.
    • [2] M, Reuber, C. Monzoni, B. Sharrack, L. Plug, Using interactional and linguistic analysis to distinguish between epileptic and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: A prospective, blinded multirater study, Epilepsy & Behav. 16, 2009, 139-144.
    • [3] C. Robson, P. Drew, T. Walker, M. Reuber, Catastrophising and normalising in patient's accounts of their seizure experiences, Seizure. 21, 2012, 795-801.
    • [4] D. Jones, P. Drew, C. Elsey, D. Blackburn, S. Wakefield, K. Harkness, M. Reuber, Conversational assessment in memory clinic encounters: interactional profiling for differentiating dementia from functional memory disorders. Aging Ment Health, 2010, 1-10. Available online ahead of print at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25803169
    • [5] C,M. Cornaggia, S.C. Gugliotta, A. Magaudda, R. Alfa, M. Beghi, M. Polita, Conversation analysis in the differential diagnosis of Italian patients with epileptic or psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: A blind prospective study, Epilepsy & Behav. 25 (2012) 598-604.
    • [6] M. Reuber, Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: answers and questions, Epilepsy & Behav. 12, 2008, 622 635.
    • [7] R.P. Lesser, Treatment and Outcome of Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures, Epilepsy Curr. 3, 2003, 198 200.
    • [8] H. Angus-Leppan, Diagnosing epilepsy in neurology clinics: a prospective study, Seizure. 17 (2008) 431 436.
    • [9] I.A. Kotsopoulos, M.C. de Krom, F.G. Kessels, J. Lodder, J. Troost, M. Twellaar, T. van Merode, A.J. Knottnerus, The diagnosis of epileptic and non-epileptic seizures, Epilepsy Res. 57, 2003, 59 67.
    • [10] K. Malmgren, M. Reuber, R. Appleton, Differential diagnosis of epilepsy, in: S. Shorvon, M. Cook, R. Guerrini, S. Lhatoo (Eds.), Epilepsy: Oxford Textbook of Clinical Neurology Series, Oxford, 2012, pp. 81-94.
    • [11] D. Smith, B.A. Defalla, D.W. Chadwick, The misdiagnosis of epilepsy and the management of refractory epilepsy in a specialist clinic, QJM-INT J MED. 92, 1999, 15 23.
    • [12] National Institute for Clinical Excellence, The epilepsies: the diagnosis and management of the epilepsies in adults and children in primary and secondary care, Clinical Guideline 137, 2012.
    • [13] J.P. Leach, R. Lauder, A. Nicolson, D.F. Smith, Epilepsy in the UK: misdiagnosis, mistreatment, and undertreatment? The Wrexham area epilepsy project, Seizure. 14, 2005, 514- 520.
    • [14] F.A. Chowdhury, L. Nashef, R.D.C. Elwes, R.D.C, Misdiagnosis in epilepsy: a review and recognition of diagnostic uncertainty, Eur J Neurol. 15 (2008) 1034 1042.
    • [15] C. Robson, P. Drew, M. Reuber, Duration and structure of unaccompanied (dyadic) and accompanied (triadic) initial outpatient consultations in a specialist seizure clinic. Epilepsy Behav. 27, 2013, 449-454.
    • [16] C, Roberts, S, Sarangi, Theme-oriented discourse analysis of medical encounters, Med Educ. 39, 2005, 632 640.
    • [17] P. Drew, J. Heritage, J. Conversation Analysis, Volumes 1-4, Sage benchmarks in social research methods. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2006.
    • [18] J. Heritage, D.W. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
    • [19] E, Goffman, Forms of Talk, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 1981.
    • [20] C. Edelsky, "Who's got the floor?", Lang in Soc. 10 (1981) 383-421.
    • [21] T. Stivers, M. ts, Lang Soc. 39, 2010, 1-25.
    • [22] T. Stivers, J. Robinson, A preference for progressivity in interaction. Lang Soc. 35. 2006, 367 392.
    • [23] S, Clayman. Answers and evasions, Lang Soc. 30 (2001) 403 442.
    • [24] H.H. Clark, J.E. Fox Tree, Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking, Cognition. (2002) 84 73 111.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article