Order:
  1.  24
    Strategic Maneuvering in Treatment Decision-Making Discussions: Two Cases in Point. [REVIEW]Nanon Labrie - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):171-199.
    Over the past decade, the ideal model of shared decision-making has been increasingly promoted as the preferred standard of doctor-patient communication in medical consultation. The model advocates a treatment decision-making process in which the doctor and his patient are considered coequal partners that carefully negotiate the treatment options available in order to ultimately reach a treatment decision that is mutually shared. Thereby, the model notably leaves room for—and stimulates—argumentative discussions to arise in the context of medical consultation. A paradigm example (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  7
    The Stereotypicality of Symptomatic and Pragmatic Argumentation in Consultations About Palliative Systemic Treatment for Advanced Cancer.Aranka Akkermans, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon Labrie, Inge Henselmans & Hanneke van Laarhoven - 2018 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 7 (2):181-203.
    A recent line of argumentation research has focused on the examination of prototypical argumentative patterns – patterns that can be theoretically expected in view of the type of standpoint defended, the institutional aim, and the conventions and constraints of the context. This paper aims to add a new dimension to both this line of research and research on health communication by determining whether the prototypical types of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer are stereotypical as well, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  15
    Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results.Nanon Labrie & Peter J. Schulz - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (1):33-55.
    General practice consultation has often been characterized by pragma-dialecticians as an argumentative activity type. These characterizations are typically derived from theoretical insights and qualitative analyses. Yet, descriptions that are based on quantitative data are thus far lacking. This paper provides a detailed account of the development of an instrument to guide the quantitative analysis of argumentation in doctor–patient consultation. It describes the implementation and preliminary results of a content analysis of seventy videotaped medical consultations of which the extent and type (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  13
    Strategically Eliciting Concessions From Patients in Treatment Decision-Making Discussions.Nanon Labrie - 2013 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (3):322-341.
    In this paper it is examined how doctors may strategically elicit concessions from their patients in order to create a favorable point of departure for the treatment decision-making discussion. Using the dialectical profile for establishing starting points in an argumentative discussion as an analytic tool, an overview is provided of the different — analytically relevant — dialectical moves that doctors may make at the opening stage of the discussion and the possible subsequent dialectical pathways. Based on examples taken from actual (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5.  6
    Argumentation and Patient Centered Care.Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon Labrie & Roosmaryn Pilgram - 2018 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 7 (2):117-119.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  6
    Conflict and Consultation: Strategic Manoeuvring in Response to an Antibiotic Request.Nanon Labrie & Douglas Walton - unknown
    In recent years, the model of shared decision-making has become increasingly promoted as the preferred standard in doctor-patient communication. As the model considers doctor and patient as coe-qual partners that negotiate their preferred treatment options in order to reach a shared decision, shared de-cision-making notably leaves room for the usage of argumentation in the context of medical consultation. A paradigm example of argumentative conflict in consultation is the discussion that emerges between doctors and their patients concerning antibiotics as a method (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark