Using qualitative methods to explore the dynamics of patients’ perspective sharing in community pharmacy counseling–conversation analysis and video-stimulated recall interviews

Main Article Content


Qualitative analyses, Emotions, Communication, Mentalizing, single case-study


Background: For patient centered counseling to take place in community pharmacies, patients should feel encouraged to share their perspectives, yet studies show that this rarely happens. The process of patient perspective sharing relies on the interactional details that unfold during an encounter i.e. how patients verbally and nonverbally are encouraged to share their perspective, which in turn is affected by patients’ and pharmacy staff members’ psychological processes in the situation, i.e. how they perceive and feel when acting. Therefore, employing complimentary methods that study both interactional and psychological processes could deepen the understanding of the dynamics governing patients’ perspective sharing in pharmacy encounters. Objective: The objective of this study is twofold: 1) a methodological consideration of the benefits of employing Conversation Analysis (CA) and Video-Stimulated Recall Interviews (VSRI) in parallel, 2) to use the methodological combination to understand patient perspective sharing in community pharmacy interactions. Method: A single case study of one pharmacy encounter to explore the objectives in-depth. This was done through video recording of pharmacy encounters and subsequent CA-analysis; VSRIs were conducted with the involved patient and pharmacy staff member and analyzed using a qualitative thematic approach. Results: By exploring detailed interactional and psychological processes in parallel, specific occurrences which might hinder patients’ perspective sharing were revealed. CA demonstrated that staff member’s listening activities restricted the patient’s perspective sharing. VSRIs with patient and staff member supported this result: the staff member had a narrow conception of what counted as suitable answers and did not consider listening an active process. The patient harbored shame about needing to take the medication which affected her behavior during the encounter. Conclusion: The novelty of the methodological combination is promising in order to grasp the complex process of patient perspective sharing in pharmacy encounters, as it affords aspects such as emotionality to be considered a central part of pharmacy encounters. As a consequence, it is suggested that the psychological concept of mentalizing is added to pharmacy education, as it is a trainable capacity enabling staff to become aware of the mental states that affect both patients and staff themselves during the pharmacy encounter.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 490 | pdf Downloads 255


1. Murad MS, Spiers JA, Guirguis LM. Expressing and negotiating face in community pharmacist-patient interactions. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2017;13(6):1110-26.
2. Wolters M, van Hulten R, Blom L, et al. Exploring the concept of patient centred communication for the pharmacy practice. Int J Clin Pharm. 2017;39(6):1145-56.
3. Naughton CA. Patient-Centered Communication. Pharmacy (Basel). 2018;6(1).
4. Langberg EM, Dyhr L, Davidsen AS. Development of the concept of patient-centredness - A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling. 2019;102(7):1228-36.
5. Grice GR, Gattas NM, Prosser T, et al. Design and Validation of Patient-Centered Communication Tools (PaCT) to Measure Students’ Communication Skills. AJPE. 2017;81(8):5927.
6. Puspitasari HP, Aslani P, Krass I. A review of counseling practices on prescription medicines in community pharmacies. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2009;5(3):197-210.
7. Olsson E, Ingman P, Ahmed B, et al. Pharmacist-patient communication in Swedish community pharmacies. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2014;10(1):149-55.
8. Author, Author 2021.
9. de Oliveira DR, Shoemaker SJ. Achieving patient centeredness in pharmacy practice: openness and the pharmacist’s natural attitude. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2006;46(1):56-64.
10. Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2013.
11. Forrest-Lawrence P. Case Study Research. In: Liamputton P, editor. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019. p. 317-31.
12. Maynard DW, Heritage J. Conversation analysis, doctor-patient interaction and medical communication. Med Educ. 2005;39(4):428-35.
13. Heritage J, Stivers T. Conversation Analysis and Sociology. In: Sidnell J, Stivers T, editors. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.
14. Mondada L. Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 2011;43(2):542-52.
15. Mondada L. Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics. 2019;145:47-62.
16. Sacks H, Schegloff E, Jefferson G. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language. 1974;50:696-735.
17. Fosgerau CF, Davidsen AS. Patients’ representations of depressive symptoms and physicians’ responses in clinical encounters. Communication & Medicine. 2018;15(1):28-39.
18. Greenhill N, Anderson C, Avery A, et al. Analysis of pharmacist-patient communication using the Calgary-Cambridge guide. Patient Education and Counseling. 2011;83(3):423-31.
19. Pilnick A. Pharmacy counselling : a study of the pharmacist/patient encounter using conversation analysis. University of Nottingham; 1997.
20. Drew P. Is confusion a state of mind? In: Molder HT, Potter J, editors. Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2005; p:161-83.
21. Larsen D, Flesaker K, Stege R. Qualitative Interviewing Using Interpersonal Process Recall: Investigating Internal Experiences during Professional-Client Conversations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2008;7(1):18-37.
22. Elliott R. Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) as a psychotherapy process research method. In: The psychotherapeutic process: A research handbook. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. 1986;p:503-27.
23. Macaskie J, Lees J, Freshwater D. Talking about talking: Interpersonal process recall as an intersubjective approach to research. Psychodynamic Practice. 2015;21(3):226-40.
24. Janusz B, Peräkylä A. Quality in conversation analysis and interpersonal process recall. null. 2020;1-24.
25. Spiers J, Riley R. Analysing one dataset with two qualitative methods: The distress of general practitioners, a thematic and interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2019;16(2):276-90.
26. Gardner R. When Listeners Talk : Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, NETHERLANDS, THE: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2001.
27. Lerner GH. Collaborative turn sequences. In: Jucker AH, editor. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2004 [cited 2021 Jul 26]. p:225-56.
28. Pino M, Mortari L. Beyond neutrality: Professionals’ responses to clients’ indirect complaints in a Therapeutic Community for
people with a diagnosis of mental illness. CAM. 2014;10(3):213-24.
29. Svinhufvud K, Voutilainen L, Weiste E. Normalizing in student counseling. Discourse Studies. 2017;19(2):196-215.
30. Heritage J. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: Atkinson JM, editor. Structures of Social
Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985. p. 299-345. (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction). https://www.
31. Haakana M. Laughter as a patient’s resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction. Text & Talk. 2001;21(1-
32. Fosgerau CF, Davidsen AS. Patients’ Perspectives on Antidepressant Treatment in Consultations With Physicians. Qual Health
Res. 2014;24(5):641-53.
33. Keating E. Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Linell P, editor. Language in Society. 2000;29(4):586-9.
34. Søndergaard B. Denmark: country case: implementation of pharmacy services in Denmark. In Bangkok; 2014.
35. Gebru A. Communication skills in pharmacy practice: a practical guide for students and practitioners (5th edition). Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences. 2012;22(1):67-9.
36. Davidsen AS, Fosgerau CF. Grasping the process of implicit mentalization. Theory & Psychology. 2015;25(4):434-54.
37. Welstead HJ, Patrick J, Russ TC, et al. Mentalising skills in generic mental healthcare settings: can we make our day-to-day interactions more therapeutic? BJPsych bulletin. 2018;42(3):102-8.
38. Satran C, Tsamri R, Peled O, et al. A unique program for nursing students to enhance their mentalization capabilities in relation to clinical thinking. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2020;36(5):424-31.
39. Choi-Kain LW. Handbook of Mentalizing in Mental Health Practice. AJP. 2012;169(3):336-336.
40. Allen JG. Mentalizing. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic. 2003;67(2):91-112.
41. Fogtmann Fosgerau C, Schöps A, Bak PL, et al. Exploring implicit mentalizing as an online process. null. 2018;70(2):129-45.
42. Smardon R. `I’d rather not take Prozac’: stigma and commodification in antidepressant consumer narratives. Health (London). 2008;12(1):67-86.
43. Knudsen P, Hansen EH, Traulsen JM, et al. Changes in Self-Concept While Using SSRI Antidepressants. Qual Health Res. 2002;12(7):932-44.
44. Castaldelli-Maia JM, Scomparini LB, Andrade AG de, et al. Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward Antidepressants: Stigma Attached to Their Use-A Review. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 2011;199(11):866-71.
45. Fuchs T. The Phenomenology of Shame, Guilt and the Body in Body Dysmorphic Disorder and Depression. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology. 2002;33(2):223-43.
46. Nguyen HT. Constructing ‘expertness’: A novice pharmacist’s development of interactional competence in patient consultations. 2006;3(2):147-60.