Communication in youth mental health clinical encounters: Introducing the agential stance.

When young people seek support from mental health care practitioners, the encounters may affect the young people's sense of self, and in particular undermine their sense of agency. For this study, an interdisciplinary team of academics and young people collaboratively analysed video-recorded encounters between young people and mental healthcare practitioners in emergency services. They identified five communication techniques that practitioners can use to avoid undermining the young person's sense of agency in the clinical encounter. They conceptualise the use of those techniques as the adoption of an agential stance towards the young person. The agential stance consists of: (a) validating the young person's experiences, (b) legitimising the young person's choice to seek help, (c) refraining from objectifying the young person, (d) affirming the young person's capacity to contribute to positive change, and (e) involving the young person in the decision-making process.

Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS): performance in a clinical sample in relation to PHQ-9 and GAD-7.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the construct validity and sensitivity to change of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) as an outcome measure in the treatment of common mental disorders (CMD) in primary care settings. METHODS: 127 participants attending up to 5 sessions of therapy for CMD in primary care self-rated the SWEMWBS, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scales. SWEMWBS's construct validity and sensitivity to change was evaluated against the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 across multiple time points in two ways: correlation coefficients were calculated between the measures at each time point; and sensitivity to change over time was assessed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Score distributions on SWEMWBS, but not PHQ-9 and GAD-7, met criteria for normality. At baseline, 92.9% (118/127) of participants scored above clinical threshold on either PHQ-9 or GAD-7. Correlations between SWEMWBS and PHQ-9 scores were calculated at each respective time point and ranged from 0.601 to 0.793. Correlations between SWEMWBS and GAD-7 scores were calculated similarly and ranged from 0.630 to 0.743. Significant improvements were seen on all three scales over time. Changes in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were curvilinear with greatest improvement between sessions 1 and 2. Change in SWEMWBS was linear over the five sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that SWEMWBS is acceptable as a CMD outcome measure in primary care settings, both in terms of construct validity and sensitivity to change. Given patient preference for positively over negatively framed measures and statistical advantages of measures which are normally distributed, SWEMWBS could be used as an alternative to PHQ-9 and GAD-7 in monitoring and evaluating CMD treatment.

An engaged approach to exploring issues around poverty and mental health: A reflective evaluation of the research process from researchers and community partners involved in the DeStress study.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients, service users, carers and members of the public in research has been part of health policy and practice in the UK for the last 15 years. However, low-income communities tend to remain marginalized from the co-design and delivery of mental health research, perpetuating the potential for health inequalities. Greater understanding is therefore needed on how to meaningfully engage low-income communities in mental health research. OBJECTIVES: To explore and articulate whether and how an engaged research approach facilitated knowledge coproduction relating to poverty and mental distress. SETTING: A reflective evaluation of community and researcher engagement in the DeStress study that took place in two low-income areas of South-west England. DESIGN: Reflective evaluation by the authors through on-going feedback, a focus group and first-person writing and discussion on experiences of working with the DeStress project, and how knowledge coproduction was influenced by an engaged research approach. RESULTS: An engaged research approach influenced the process and delivery of the DeStress project, creating a space where community partners felt empowered to coproduce knowledge relating to poverty-related mental distress, treatment and the training of health professionals that would otherwise have been missed. We examine motivations for involvement, factors sustaining engagement, how coproduction influenced research analysis, findings and dissemination of outputs, and what involvement meant for different stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Engaged research supported the coproduction of knowledge in mental health research with low-income communities which led to multiple impacts.

Communication and understanding of mild cognitive impairment diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Communication of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) diagnoses is challenging due to its heterogeneity and unclear prognosis. AIM: To identify how MCI is communicated and to explore the relationship with patient and companion understanding. METHOD: Conversation analysis identified whether MCI was named and explained in 43 video recorded diagnosis feedback meetings. Afterward, patients and companions were asked to name the diagnosis to assess understanding. RESULTS: Mild cognitive impairment was not named in 21% meetings. Symptoms were explained as (a) a result of vascular conditions (49%), (b) a stage between normal ageing and dementia (30%), or (c) caused by psychological factors (21%). Fifty-four percentage of prognosis discussions included mention of dementia. There was no association between symptom explanations and whether prognosis discussions included dementia. Fifty-seven percentage patients and 37% companions reported not having or not knowing their diagnosis after the meeting. They were more likely to report MCI when prognosis discussions included dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors offer three different explanations of MCI to patients. The increased risk of dementia was not discussed in half the diagnostic feedback meetings. This is likely to reflect the heterogeneity in the definition, cause and likely prognosis of MCI presentations. Clearer and more consistent communication, particularly about the increased risk of dementia, may increase patient understanding and enable lifestyle changes to prevent some people progressing to dementia.

Barriers and facilitators to GP-patient communication about emotional concerns in UK primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, general practitioners (GPs) are the most commonly used providers of care for emotional concerns. OBJECTIVE: To update and synthesize literature on barriers and facilitators to GP-patient communication about emotional concerns in UK primary care. DESIGN: Systematic review and qualitative synthesis. METHOD: We conducted a systematic search on MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycInfo and EMBASE, supplemented by citation chasing. Eligible papers focused on how GPs and adult patients in the UK communicated about emotional concerns. Results were synthesized using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Across 30 studies involving 342 GPs and 720 patients, four themes relating to barriers were: (i) emotional concerns are difficult to disclose; (ii) tension between understanding emotional concerns as a medical condition or arising from social stressors; (iii) unspoken assumptions about agency resulting in too little or too much involvement in decisions and (iv) providing limited care driven by little time. Three facilitative themes were: (v) a human connection improves identification of emotional concerns and is therapeutic; (vi) exploring, explaining and negotiating a shared understanding or guiding patients towards new understandings and (vii) upfront information provision and involvement manages expectations about recovery and improves engagement in treatment. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that treatment guidelines should acknowledge: the therapeutic value of a positive GP-patient relationship; that diagnosis is a two-way negotiated process rather than an activity strictly in the doctor's domain of expertise; and the value of exploring and shaping new understandings about patients' emotional concerns and their management.

Patients' experiences of seeking help for emotional concerns in primary care: doctor as drug, detective and collaborator.

BACKGROUND: NICE guidelines for the management of emotional concerns in primary care emphasise the importance of communication and a trusting relationship, which is difficult to operationalise in practice. Current pressures in the NHS mean that it is important to understand care from a patient perspective. This study aimed to explore patients' experiences of primary care consultations for emotional concerns and what patients valued when seeking care from their GP. METHODS: Eighteen adults with experience of consulting a GP for emotional concerns participated in 4 focus groups. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: (1) Doctor as Drug: Patients' relationship with their GP was considered therapeutic with continuity particularly valued. (2) Doctor as Detective and Validator: Patients were often puzzled by their symptoms, not recognising their emotional concerns. GPs needed to play the role of detective by exploring not just symptoms, but the person and their life circumstances. GPs were crucial in helping patients understand and validate their emotional concerns. (3) Doctor as Collaborator: Patients prefer a collaborative partnership, but often need to relinquish involvement because they are too unwell, or take a more active role because they feel GPs are ill-equipped or under too much pressure to help. Patients valued: GPs booking their follow up appointments; acknowledgement of stressful life circumstances; not relying solely on medication. CONCLUSIONS: Seeking help for emotional concerns is challenging due to stigma and unfamiliar symptoms. GPs can support disclosure and understanding of emotional concerns by fully exploring and validating patients' concerns, taking into account patients' life contexts. This process of exploration and validation forms the foundation of a curative, trusting GP-patient relationship. A trusting relationship, with an emphasis on empathy and understanding, can make patients more able to share involvement in their care with GPs. This process is cyclical, as patients feel that their GP is caring, interested, and treating them as a person, further strengthening their relationship. NICE guidance should acknowledge the importance of empathy and validation when building an effective GP-patient partnership, and the role this has in supporting patients' involvement in their care.

Drawing a line in the sand: affect and testimony in autism assessment teams in the UK.

Diagnosis of autism in the UK is generally made within a multidisciplinary team setting and is primarily based on observation and clinical interview. We examined how clinicians diagnose autism in practice by observing post-assessment meetings in specialist autism teams. Eighteen meetings across four teams based in the south of England and covering 88 cases were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. We drew out two themes, related to the way in which clinicians expressed their specialist disciplinary knowledge to come to diagnostic consensus: Feeling Autism in the Encounter; and Evaluating Testimonies of Non-present Actors. We show how clinicians produce objective accounts through their situated practices and perform diagnosis as an act of interpretation, affect and evaluation to meet the institutional demands of the diagnostic setting. Our study contributes to our understanding of how diagnosis is accomplished in practice.

Use of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in Practice: Interactions between patients and physicians.

We analyze the use of nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), an instrument that is widely used in diagnosing and determining the severity of depression. Using conversation analysis, we show how the doctor deploys the PHQ-9 in response to the patient's doubts about whether she is depressed. Rather than relaying the PHQ-9 verbatim, the doctor deviates from the wording so that the response options are selectively offered to upgrade the severity of the patient's symptoms. This works in favor of a positive diagnosis and is used to justify a treatment recommendation that the patient previously resisted. This contrasted with the rest of the data set, where diagnosis was either not delivered (as patients are presenting with ongoing problems) or delivered without using the PHQ-9. When clinician-administered, the PHQ-9 can be influenced by how response items are presented. This can lead to either downgrading or upgrading the severity of depression.

Involving patients with dementia in decisions to initiate treatment: effect on patient acceptance, satisfaction and medication prescription.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is advocated but may be affected by cognitive impairment. Measures of shared decision-making provide global descriptions of communication without detailed analysis of the subtle ways in which doctors invite patient input.AimsWe aimed to explore medication decisions in dementia, using a standardised Treatment Recommendation Coding Scheme. METHOD: We analysed 71 video-recorded dementia diagnostic meetings from nine memory clinics. Recommendations were coded as pronouncements ('I will start you on medication'), proposals ('Shall we try medication?'), suggestions ('Would you like to try medication?'), offers ('I can prescribe medication') or assertions ('There is medication'). Patient responses were coded as acceptance ('I'd like to have that'), active resistance ('I'm not very keen') and passive resistance (minimal or no response). Cognitive test scores, prescription rates and satisfaction were assessed and associations were explored. RESULTS: Doctors used suggestions in 42% of meetings, proposals in 25%, assertions in 13%, pronouncements in 11% and offers in 9%. Over 80% of patients did not indicate clear acceptance. Patients were most likely to actively resist after suggestions. There was no association between cognitive impairment and recommendation format. Patients were less satisfied with pronouncements. Patient preference did not influence whether medication was prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors initially nominate people with dementia as the decision maker, and this is unaffected by cognitive impairment. Over 80% of patients resisted starting medication, mostly through passive resistance, the most common form of disagreement in communication. Medication still tended to be prescribed, indicating that factors other than patient preference affect prescription.Declarations of interestNone.

Patient and companion shared decision making and satisfaction with decisions about starting cholinesterase medication at dementia diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: there is little research on how people with dementia are involved in treatment decisions at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: to measure shared decision making when starting cholinesterase inhibitors, investigate associations with contextual factors and explore satisfaction and experience of the diagnostic meeting. SETTING: nine UK memory clinics in two geographical locations. SUBJECTS: 74 people receiving dementia diagnoses (with 69 companions) and 21 doctors. METHODS: we video-recorded 74 memory clinic consultations and rated doctor-shared decision making behaviours using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making scale (OPTION-5 scale). Patients and companions rated their satisfaction and experience. Mixed-effects regressions investigated involvement and (i) number people present, meeting length, capacity, cognitive functioning, diagnosis; and (ii) patient/companion satisfaction and consultation experience. RESULTS: mean consultation time was 26.7 min. Mean OPTION-5 score was 22.5/100 (Standard Deviation = 17.3). Doctors involved patients in decisions more often when patients had mixed dementia (ß = 10.13, 95% confidence interval 1.25-19.0, P = 0.025) and in shorter meetings (ß = -0.51, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.15, P = 0.006). Patient and companion satisfaction were high and not associated with whether doctors invited patient involvement. Half of patients and one-third companions were uncertain about the meeting outcome, experienced communication barriers and negative emotions. CONCLUSIONS: consultations scored low on shared decision making, but were comparable to other settings and were not lower with more cognitively impaired patients. Negative patient and companion experiences reflect the importance of supporting healthcare providers to address patient and companion emotions and need for information.

How do doctors deliver a diagnosis of dementia in memory clinics?

BACKGROUND: Dementia diagnosis rates are increasing. Guidelines recommend that people with dementia should be told their diagnosis clearly and honestly to facilitate future planning. Aims To analyse how doctors deliver a dementia diagnosis in practice. METHOD: Conversation analysis was conducted on 81 video-recorded diagnosis feedback meetings with 20 doctors from nine UK memory clinics. RESULTS: All doctors named dementia; 59% (n = 48) approached the diagnosis indirectly but delicately ('this is dementia') and 41% (n = 33) approached this directly but bluntly ('you have Alzheimer's disease'). Direct approaches were used more often with people with lower cognitive test scores. Doctors emphasised that the dementia was mild and tended to downplay its progression, with some avoiding discussing prognosis altogether. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors are naming dementia to patients. Direct approaches reflect attempts to ensure clear diagnosis. Downplaying and avoiding prognosis demonstrates concerns about preserving hope but may compromise understanding about and planning for the future. Declaration of interest None.

Effectiveness of brief psychological interventions for suicidal presentations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Every year, more than 800,000 people worldwide die by suicide. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of brief psychological interventions in addressing suicidal thoughts and behaviour in healthcare settings. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO databases. A predefined search strategy was used. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts followed by full texts against predefined inclusion criteria. Backward and forward citation tracking of included papers was conducted. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials and the CASP tool for randomised controlled trials. The small number and heterogeneity of studies did not allow for meta-analysis to be conducted. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Four controlled studies of brief psychological interventions were included, conducted in Switzerland, the U.S. and across low and middle-income countries. Three studies were conducted with adults and one with adolescents. All studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. All of the interventions were implemented with patients after attending emergency departments and involved 3412 participants. The main outcomes were suicide, suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, depression and hospitalization. The components of the interventions were early therapeutic engagement, information provision, safety planning and follow-up contact for at least 12 months. The interventions drew to, different degrees, on psychological theory and techniques. Two trials that measured suicidal ideation found no impact. Two studies showed fewer suicide attempts, one showed fewer suicides and one found an effect on depression. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence base is small, brief psychological interventions appear to be effective in reducing suicide and suicide attempts. All studies to date have been conducted with people who had attended the ED but the interventions could potentially be adopted for inpatient and other outpatient settings. Early engagement and therapeutic intervention based on psychological theories of suicidal behaviour, sustained in follow-up contacts, may be particularly beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42015025867.

How Psychiatrists Recommend Treatment and Its Relationship with Patient Uptake.

Consultations for patients with chronic mental health conditions are conceived as meetings of experts: medical and experiential, respectively. Treatment decisions, in these terms, become a joint responsibility rather than handed down ex-cathedra. One resource for constituting decisions as 'shared' is the treatment recommendation - decisional authority can be invoked through its design. There is concern that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are infrequently involved in treatment decisions. However, the methods psychiatrists actually employ remain undefined. This article advances our understanding of psychiatric practice by mapping alternative methods used by psychiatrists to recommend treatment in outpatient consultations in situ. First, we unpack the types of treatments psychiatrists recommend. Then, we ask how psychiatrists recommend treatment? Applying a novel coding taxonomy, informed by the conversation analytic principle that recommendations represent different social actions, we identify the distribution of alternative formulations for psychiatrists' recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, and offers). We also propose one linguistic dimension, personal pronouns, on which recommending actions often depend, implicative for who is projected as 'accountable' for the decision. Finally, we examine the relationship between action type and patient uptake: is a particular type of recommendation more likely to attract acceptance/resistance from patients? And how does this relate to decisional accountability?

Treatment Recommendations as Actions.

From the earliest studies of doctor-patient interaction (Byrne & Long, 1976), it has been recognized that treatment recommendations may be expressed in more or less authoritative ways, based on their design and delivery. There are clear differences between I'm going to start you on X and We can give you X to try and Would you like me to give you X? Yet little is known about this variation, its contexts, or its consequences. In this paper, we develop a basic taxonomy of treatment recommendations in primary care as a first step toward a more comprehensive investigation. We take as our point of departure the observation that treatment recommendations such as those above represent not only different formulations but also different social actions. We distinguish five main treatment recommendation actions: pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, and assertions. We ask: what are the main dimensions on which these recommendations vary and to what end? And what sorts of factors shape a clinician's use of one action type over another with respect to recommending a medication in the primary care context?

Closing the Deal: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Treatment Resistance.

This study investigates patient resistance to doctors' treatment recommendations in a cross-national comparison of primary care. Through this lens, we explore English and American patients' enacted priorities, expectations, and assumptions about treating routine illnesses with prescription versus over-the-counter medications. We perform a detailed analysis of 304 (American) and 393 (English) naturally occurring treatment discussions and conclude that American and English patients tend to use treatment resistance in different prescribing contexts to pursue different ends. While American patients are most likely to resist recommendations for non-prescription treatment and display an expectation for prescription treatment in these interactions, English patients show a high level of resistance to recommendations for all types of treatment and display an expectation of cautious prescribing. These behavioral trends reflect broader structural forces unique to each national context and ultimately maintain distinct cultural norms of good-practice prescribing.

How do healthcare professionals interview patients to assess suicide risk?

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on how professionals communicate to assess suicide risk. This study analysed how professionals interview patients about suicidal ideation in clinical practice. METHODS: Three hundred nineteen video-recorded outpatient visits in U.K. secondary mental health care were screened. 83 exchanges about suicidal ideation were identified in 77 visits. A convenience sample of 6 cases in 46 primary care visits was also analysed. Depressive symptoms were assessed. Questions and responses were qualitatively analysed using conversation analysis. χ 2 tested whether questions were influenced by severity of depression or influenced patients' responses. RESULTS: A gateway closed question was always asked inviting a yes/no response. 75% of questions were negatively phrased, communicating an expectation of no suicidal ideation, e.g., "No thoughts of harming yourself?". 25% were positively phrased, communicating an expectation of suicidal ideation, e.g., "Do you feel life is not worth living?". Comparing these two question types, patients were significantly more likely to say they were not suicidal when the question was negatively phrased but were not more likely to say they were suicidal when positively phrased (χ 2 = 7.2, df = 1, p = 0.016). 25% patients responded with a narrative rather than a yes/no, conveying ambivalence. Here, psychiatrists tended to pursue a yes/no response. When the patient responded no to the gateway question, the psychiatrist moved on to the next topic. A similar pattern was identified in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatrists tend to ask patients to confirm they are not suicidal using negative questions. Negatively phrased questions bias patients' responses towards reporting no suicidal ideation.

Stakeholders perspectives on the key components of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia: a qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interventions aiming to coordinate services for the community-based dementia population vary in components, organisation and implementation. In this review we aimed to investigate the views of stakeholders on the key components of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia. METHODS: We searched four databases from inception to June 2015; Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PsycINFO, this was aided by a search of four grey literature databases, and backward and forward citation tracking of included papers. Title and abstract screening was followed by a full text screen by two independent reviewers, and quality was assessed using the CASP appraisal tool. We then conducted thematic synthesis on extracted data. RESULTS: A total of seven papers from five independent studies were included in the review, and encompassed the views of over 100 participants from three countries. Through thematic synthesis we identified 32 initial codes that were grouped into 5 second-order themes: (1) case manager had four associated codes and described preferences for the case manager personal and professional attributes, including a sound knowledge in dementia and availability of local services; (2) communication had five associated codes and emphasized the importance stakeholders placed on multichannel communication with service users, as well as between multidisciplinary teams and across organisations; (3) intervention had 11 associated codes which focused primarily on the practicalities of implementation such as the contact type and frequency between case managers and service users, and the importance of case manager training and service evaluation; (4) resources had five associated codes which outlined stakeholder views on the required resources for coordinating interventions and potential overlap with existing resources, as well as arising issues when available resources do not meet those required for successful implementation; and (5) support had seven associated codes that reflect the importance that was placed on the support network around the case manager and the investment of professionals involved directly in care as well as the wider professional network. CONCLUSION: The synthesis of relevant qualitative studies has shown how various stakeholder groups considered dementia care coordination interventions to be acceptable, useful and appropriate for dementia care, and have clear preferences for components, implementation methods and settings of these interventions. By incorporating stakeholders' perspectives and preferences when planning and developing coordinating interventions we may increase the likelihood of successful implementation and patient benefits.

The effectiveness of community-based coordinating interventions in dementia care: a meta-analysis and subgroup analysis of intervention components.

BACKGROUND: Interventions aiming to coordinate services for the community-based dementia population vary in components, organisation and implementation. In this review we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of community-based care coordinating interventions on health outcomes and investigate whether specific components of interventions influence their effects. METHODS: We searched four databases from inception to April 2017: Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PsycINFO. This was aided by a search of four grey literature databases, and backward and forward citation tracking of included papers. Title and abstract screening was followed by a full text screen by two independent reviewers, and quality was assessed using the CASP appraisal tool. We then conducted meta-analyses and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: A total of 14 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 10,372 participants were included in the review. Altogether we carried out 12 meta-analyses and 19 subgroup analyses. Meta-analyses found coordinating interventions showed a statistically significant improvement in both patient behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (mean difference (MD) = -9.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): -18.1 to -1.0; p = 0.03; number of studies (n) = 4; I2 = 88%) and caregiver burden (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.54; 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.07; p = 0.02; n = 5, I2 = 92%) compared to the control group. Subgroup analyses found interventions using a case manager with a nursing background showed a greater positive effect on caregiver quality of life than those that used case managers from other professional backgrounds (SMD = 0.94 versus 0.03, respectively; p < 0.001). Interventions that did not provide supervision for the case managers showed greater effectiveness for reducing the percentage of patients that are institutionalised compared to those that provided supervision (odds ratio (OR) = 0.27 versus 0.96 respectively; p = 0.02). There was little evidence of effects on other outcomes, or that other intervention components modify the intervention effects. CONCLUSION: Results show that coordinating interventions in dementia care has a positive impact on some outcomes, namely patient behaviour and caregiver burden, but the evidence is inconsistent and results were not strong enough to draw definitive conclusions on general effectiveness. With the rising prevalence of dementia, effective complex interventions will be necessary to provide high quality and effective care for patients, and facilitate collaboration of health, social and third sector services.

Effect of questions used by psychiatrists on therapeutic alliance and adherence.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatrists' questions are the mechanism for achieving clinical objectives and managing the formation of a therapeutic alliance - consistently associated with patient adherence. No research has examined the nature of this relationship and the different practices used in psychiatry. Questions are typically defined in binary terms (e.g. 'open' v 'closed') that may have limited application in practice. AIMS: To undertake a detailed examination of the types of questions psychiatrists ask patients and explore their association with the therapeutic alliance and patient adherence. METHOD: A coding protocol was developed to classify questions from 134 out-patient consultations, predominantly by syntactic form. Bivariate correlations with measures of patient adherence and the therapeutic alliance (psychiatrist-rated) were examined and assessed using generalised estimating equations, adjusting for patient symptoms, psychiatrist identity and amount of speech. RESULTS: Psychiatrists used only four of ten question types regularly: yes/no auxiliary questions, 'wh-' questions, declarative questions and tag questions. Only declarative questions predicted better adherence and perceptions of the therapeutic relationship. Conversely, 'wh-' questions - associated with positive symptoms - predicted poorer perceptions of the therapeutic relationship. Declarative questions were frequently used to propose an understanding of patients' experiences, in particular their emotional salience for the patient. CONCLUSIONS: A refined defining of questioning practices is necessary to improve communication in psychiatry. The use of declarative questions may enhance alliance and adherence, or index their manifestation in talk, e.g. better mutual understanding. The function of 'so'-prefaced declaratives, also used in psychotherapy, is more nuanced than negatively connotated 'leading' questions. Hearable as displays of empathy, they attend closely to patient experience, while balancing the tasks of assessment and treatment.

Training to enhance psychiatrist communication with patients with psychosis (TEMPO): cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A better therapeutic relationship predicts better outcomes. However, there is no trial-based evidence on how to improve therapeutic relationships in psychosis. AIMS: To test the effectiveness of communication training for psychiatrists on improving shared understanding and the therapeutic relationship (trial registration: ISRCTN94846422). METHOD: In a cluster randomised controlled trial in the UK, 21 psychiatrists were randomised. Ninety-seven (51% of those approached) out-patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder were recruited, and 64 (66% of the sample recruited at baseline) were followed up after 5 months. The intervention group received four group and one individualised session. The primary outcome, rated blind, was psychiatrist effort in establishing shared understanding (self-repair). Secondary outcome was the therapeutic relationship. RESULTS: Psychiatrists receiving the intervention used 44% more self-repair than the control group (adjusted difference in means 6.4, 95% CI 1.46-11.33, P<0.011, a large effect) adjusting for baseline self-repair. Psychiatrists rated the therapeutic relationship more positively (adjusted difference in means 0.20, 95% CI 0.03-0.37, P = 0.022, a medium effect), as did patients (adjusted difference in means 0.21, 95% CI 0.01-0.41, P = 0.043, a medium effect). CONCLUSIONS: Shared understanding can be successfully targeted in training and improves relationships in treating psychosis.