Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Skelton, J. R
Right arrow Articles by Hobbs, F. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Skelton, J. R
Right arrow Articles by Hobbs, F. R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 19, No. 5, 484-488
© Oxford University Press 2002


Health Services Research

‘I’ and ‘we’: a concordancing analysis of how doctors and patients use first person pronouns in primary care consultations

John R Skelton, Andy M Wearn and FD Richard Hobbs

Department of Primary Care and General Practice, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Mr JR Skelton, Department of Primary Care and General Practice, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; E-mail: j.r.skelton{at}bham.ac.uk

Background. It is widely accepted that ‘partnership’ with patients is desirable, and that patients should be enabled to participate in decisions, but it is not clear to what extent doctor–patient interactions represent partnership in action.

Objective. Our aim was to measure aspects of doctor–patient interaction through the deployment of the first person pronouns ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘we’ and ‘us’ in general practice consultations.

Methods. The study design was a concordance-based language analysis of spoken data. Concordancing software was used to interrogate a database of 373 consultations with 40 doctors in UK general practice. The frequency and function of first person pronouns used in these consultations were scrutinized. Concordancing enables identification of strings of text with similar lexical properties and uses specialized statistics to assess relationships between words and phrases (‘collocates’ being words commonly found together) as well as their patterns of use (MI, mutual information, describes the likelihood of two words or phrases being associated). Analysis is therefore quantitative and qualitative.

Results. Doctors use the word ‘we’ far more often than patients or companions do (doctors 23.5% and patients 2.9% of all personal pronoun occurrences). Doctors are far less likely to use ‘I’, after which a verb of thinking is usually selected (38 collocates with MI >3). However, after ‘we’, doctors select verbs of physical activity or auxiliary verbs. Three types of doctor use of ‘we’ were distinguished: to include patients ("you and I"), exclude them ("we doctors" or "we as a practice") or to mean "all of us as human beings".

Conclusions. The findings suggest a prototypical pattern of interaction in primary care: Patient: I suffer. Doctor: I think. We will act. This, within the current paradigm which values partnership between doctor and patient, might seem encouraging; but there is evidence to suggest that power relationships in the consultation may still be unequal.

Keywords. Communication, general practice, language, lexical concordance, patient-centredness.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
R. Dobson
We are definitely not amused
BMJ, October 26, 2002; 325(7370): 919 - 919.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.