IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v314y2022ics0277953622007699.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Brief opportunistic interventions by general practitioners to promote smoking cessation: A conversation analytic study

Author

Listed:
  • Wheat, H.
  • Barnes, R.K.
  • Aveyard, P.
  • Stevenson, F.
  • Begh, R.

Abstract

Very brief opportunistic interventions for smoking cessation are effective, cost-saving for health systems, and universally recommended in guidelines. However, evidence suggests that clinicians are reluctant to intervene, citing interactional difficulties. Only one UK study has specifically examined smoking discussions, within naturally occurring primary care consultations. However smoking cessation treatment was not available at the time. We examined existing datasets amounting to 519 video-recordings of GP consultations in England for instances of talk about smoking. We used conversation analytic methods to assess patients' responses to doctors asking about smoking, giving advice on smoking, and offering cessation treatment. In 31 recordings it was apparent that the patient smoked, and, in 25/31 consultations, doctors initiated the topic of smoking. They did so by asking about smoking status, commonly during the history-taking phase of the consultation. In many instances, these questions led to active resistance from patients against being placed in a discreditable category, for example by minimising their smoking. This was more pronounced when GPs pursued efforts to quantify the amount smoked. Thereafter, where doctors returned to the topic of smoking, they did so typically by linking smoking to the patient's medical condition, which likewise led to resistance. Guidance recommends that GPs advise on how best to quit smoking where patients are interested in doing so, but this was only evident in a minority of consultations. Where GPs offered support for cessation, they did so using interactional practices that minimised the need for the patient to respond and thereby accept. Interactional difficulties were found to be common in consultations between GPs and people who smoke when GPs actions aligned with some VBA guidelines. Future research should examine when and how advice on how best to quit, and offers of support, should be delivered within primary care consultations.

Suggested Citation

  • Wheat, H. & Barnes, R.K. & Aveyard, P. & Stevenson, F. & Begh, R., 2022. "Brief opportunistic interventions by general practitioners to promote smoking cessation: A conversation analytic study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:314:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622007699
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622007699
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115463?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Freeman, Sarah H., 1987. "Health promotion talk in family practice encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 961-966, January.
    2. Bergen, Clara, 2020. "The conditional legitimacy of behavior change advice in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    3. Pilnick, Alison & Coleman, Tim, 2003. ""I'll give up smoking when you get me better": patients' resistance to attempts to problematise smoking in general practice (GP) consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 135-145, July.
    4. Pilnick, Alison & Coleman, Tim, 2006. "Death, depression and 'defensive expansion': Closing down smoking as an issue for discussion in GP consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2500-2512, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benwell, Bethan & Rhys, Catrin S., 2018. "Negotiating relevance in pre-operative assessments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 218-226.
    2. Bergen, Clara & McCabe, Rose, 2021. "Negative stance towards treatment in psychosocial assessments: The role of personalised recommendations in promoting acceptance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    3. de Kok, B.C. & Widdicombe, S. & Pilnick, A. & Laurier, E., 2018. "Doing patient-centredness versus achieving public health targets: A critical review of interactional dilemmas in ART adherence support," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 17-25.
    4. Bergen, Clara, 2020. "The conditional legitimacy of behavior change advice in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    5. Jin, Ying & Kim, Younhee, 2022. "Dietary advice in chronic care: Comparing traditional Chinese and western medicine practiced in mainland China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    6. Pilnick, Alison & Coleman, Tim, 2006. "Death, depression and 'defensive expansion': Closing down smoking as an issue for discussion in GP consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2500-2512, May.
    7. Kushida, Shuya & Kawashima, Michie & Abe, Tetsuya, 2020. "Why this clinic now? A context-sensitive aspect of accounting for visits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    8. Doherty, Carole & Saunders, Mark N.K., 2013. "Elective surgical patients' narratives of hospitalization: The co-construction of safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 29-36.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:314:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622007699. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.