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 generat...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2794/ |
| _version_ | 1848790877263101952 |
|---|---|
| author | Parry, Ruth H. Land, Victoria |
| author_facet | Parry, Ruth H. Land, Victoria |
| author_sort | Parry, Ruth H. |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T18:19:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-2794 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T18:19:35Z |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publisher | BioMed Central |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-27942020-05-04T16:36:42Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2794/ 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 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 Article PeerReviewed Parry, Ruth H. and Land, Victoria (2013) Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13 (May). 13/1-13/13. ISSN 1471-2288 Systematic review Conversation analysis Discourse analysis Health care Quality appraisal Methodology http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/13/69 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-69 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-69 |
| spellingShingle | Systematic review Conversation analysis Discourse analysis Health care Quality appraisal Methodology 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 | Systematic review Conversation analysis Discourse analysis Health care Quality appraisal Methodology |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2794/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2794/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2794/ |