What to take up from the patient's talk? The clinician's responses to the patient's self-disclosure of their subjective experience in the psychiatric intake interview.

During psychiatric diagnostic interviews, the clinician's question usually targets specific symptom descriptions based on diagnostic categories for ICD-10/DSM-5 (2, 3). While some patients merely answer questions, others go beyond to describe their subjective experiences in a manner that highlights the intensity and urgency of those experiences. By adopting conversation analysis as a method, this study examines diagnostic interviews conducted in an outpatient clinic in South Finland and identifies sequences that divulge patients' subjective experiences. From 10 audio-recorded diagnostic interviews, 40 segments were selected where patients replied to medically or factually oriented questions with their self-disclosures. The research focus was on the clinicians' responses to these disclosures. We present five sequential trajectories that the clinicians offered third-position utterances in response to their patients' self-disclosure of subjective experiences. These trajectories include the following: 1) the clinician transfers the topic to a new agenda question concerning a medical or factual theme; 2) the clinician presents a follow-up question that selects a topic from the patient's self-disclosure of a subjective experience that may orient either towards the medical/factual side or the experiential side of the patient's telling; 3) the clinician provides an expert interpretation of the patient's self-disclosure of his or her subjective experience from the clinician's expert perspective; 4) the clinician gives advice that orients mainly to a treatment recommendation or to another activity; and 5) the clinician presents a formulation that focusses on the core of their patient's self-disclosure of his or her subjective experience from the patient's perspective. In addition, we present what these responsive practices invoke from the patient in the next turn. We argue that an awareness of these strategies facilitates both the diagnosis and an appropriate therapeutic relationship during the psychiatric assessment interview. Finally, we discuss the clinical significance of our results regarding the patient's agency and the clinician's more conscious patient-centred orientation in the psychiatric assessment procedure.

The Patients' Practises Disclosing Subjective Experiences in the Psychiatric Intake Interview.

In psychiatric diagnostic interviews, a clinician's question designed to elicit a specific symptom description is sometimes met with the patient's self-disclosure of their subjective experience. In shifting the topical focus to their subjective experiences, the patients do something more or something other than just answering the question. Using conversation analysis, we examined such sequences in diagnostic interviews in an outpatient clinic in Finland. From 10 audio-recorded diagnostic interviews, we found 45 segments where medical questions were met with patients' self-disclosures. We show four sequential trajectories that enable this shift of topic and action. There are four possible trajectories: (1) the patient first answers the medical question and the clinician acknowledges this answer, whereupon the patient shifts to a self-disclosure of their subjective experience; (2) the patient first gives the medical answer but shifts to self-disclosure without the clinician's acknowledgement of that answer; (3) the patient produces an extensive answer to the medical question and, in the course of producing this, shifts into the self-disclosure; (4) the patient does not offer a medical answer but designs the self-disclosure as if it were the answer to the medical question. We argue that in the shifts to the self-disclosure of their subjective negative experience, the patients take local control of the interaction. These shifts also embody a clash between the interactional projects of the participants. At the end of the paper, we discuss the clinical relevance of our results regarding the patient's agency and the goals of the psychiatric assessment.

Physiological responses to proposals during dyadic decision-making conversations.

A novel conversation-analytically informed paradigm was used to examine how joint decision-making interaction, with its various types of proposal sequences, is reflected in the physiological responses of participants. Two types of dyads-dyads with one depressed and one non-depressed participant (N = 15) and dyads with two non-depressed participants (N = 15)-engaged in a series of conversational joint decision-making tasks, during which we measured their skin conductance (SC) responses. We found that the participants' SC response rates were higher and more synchronized during proposal sequences than elsewhere in the conversation. Furthermore, SC response rates were higher when the participant was in the role of a proposal speaker (vs. a proposal recipient), and making a proposal was associated with higher SC response rates for participants with depression (vs. participants without depression). Moreover, the SC response rates in the proposal speaker were higher when the recipient accepted (vs. not accepted) the proposal. We interpret this finding with reference to accepting responses suggesting a commitment to future action, for which the proposal speaker may feel specifically responsible for. A better understanding of the physiological underpinnings of joint decision-making interaction may help improve democratic practices in contexts where certain individuals experience challenges in this regard.

Offering patients opportunities to reveal their subjective experiences in psychiatric assessment interviews.

OBJECTIVE: With the intention of understanding the dynamics of psychiatric interviews, we investigated the usual (DSM/ICD-based) psychiatric assessment process and an alternative assessment process based on a case formulation method. We compared the two different approaches in terms of the clinicians' practices for offering patients opportunities to reveal their subjective experiences. METHODS: Using qualitative and quantitative applications of conversation analysis, we compared patient-clinician interaction in five usual psychiatric assessments (AAU) with five assessment interviews based on dialogical sequence analysis (DSA). RESULTS: The frequency of conversational sequences where the patient described his/her problematic experiences was higher in the DSA interviews than in the AAU interviews. In DSA, the clinicians typically facilitated the patient's subjective experience talk by experience-focused questions and formulations, whereas in AAU, such talk typically occurred in environments where the clinicians' questions and formulations focused on non-experiential, medical matters. CONCLUSION: Interaction in DSA was organized to provide for the patient's experience-focused talk, whereas in AAU, the patient needed to go against the conversational grain to produce such talk. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: By facilitating patients' opportunities to uncover subjective experiences, it is possible to promote their individualized care planning in psychiatry.

Institutionalised otherness: Patients references to psychiatric diagnostic categories.

Diagnosis is integral part of the way medicine organises illness: it is important for identifying treatment options, predicting outcomes and providing an explanatory framework for clinicians. Previous research has shown that during a medical visit not only the clinician but also patients provide explanations for the causes of their symptoms and health problems. Patients' lifeworld explanations are often differentiated from the diagnostic explanations provided by clinicians. However, while previous conversation analytic research has elaborated the ways in which diagnostic and lifeworld explanations are interactionally structured in somatic medicine, there is little research on how these explanations are organised in psychiatry. Psychiatric diagnosis is particularly interesting because in mental disorders illness itself is not determined by any objective measurement. Understanding of the patient's problem is constructed in interaction between the patient and clinician. The focus of this research will be patients' references to diagnosis in psychiatry and the functions of these references. The findings are based on conversation analysis of 29 audio-recorded diagnostic interviews in a psychiatric outpatient clinic. Our results demonstrate that patients can utilise diagnostic categories in several ways: disavowing a category to distance their symptoms from it, accounting for their life experiences being rooted in psychiatric illnesses and explaining their illnesses as being caused by certain life experiences. We argue that these explanations are important in patients' face-work - in constructing and maintaining a coherent and meaningful view of the patient's self.