Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Communication and Medicine

More options …

Comparing homeopathic and general practice consultations: The case of problem presentation

Johanna Ruusuvuori
Published Online: 2005-10-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/come.2005.2.2.123

Abstract

Both general practice and homeopathic consultations are organized around the key task of treating patients’ health-related problems. Despite their different theories of healing, interactions between professionals and patients in both share many features, though there are also clear differences in the ways in which patients and professionals go about the process of problem solving. This paper compares the ways in which a specific activity, the delivery and reception of the reason for the visit, is managed in these two institutional environments. Through the comparison, it discusses ways in which participants are informed by the different theories of healing and ‘ideal’ models of interaction in their activities at the consultation, and points at some discrepancies between theories on treatment and theories on interaction. Furthermore, the paper shows how other contextual features, such as the institutionalized structure of a service encounter, may be consequential for the interaction analyzed. Finally, the paper discusses the potential benefits of this analysis to the practices studied.

About the article

Published Online: 2005-10-13

Published in Print: 2005-10-26


Citation Information: Communication & Medicine, Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 123–135, ISSN (Print) 1612-1783, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/come.2005.2.2.123.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[2]
John Chatwin and Andrea Capstick
Dementia, 2017, Page 147130121772492
[3]
Christian S. Kessler, Clemens Eisenmann, Frank Oberzaucher, Martin Forster, Nico Steckhan, Larissa Meier, Elmar Stapelfeldt, Andreas Michalsen, and Michael Jeitler
Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2017, Volume 34, Page 57
[5]
Jennifer R. Guzmán
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2014, Volume 24, Number 3, Page 249
[6]
John Chatwin, Anne Kennedy, Adam Firth, Andrew Povey, Anne Rogers, and Caroline Sanders
Social Science & Medicine, 2014, Volume 113, Page 120
[8]
John Chatwin
Journal of Pragmatics, 2008, Volume 40, Number 2, Page 244
[10]
Rolf Wynn and Gunn Pettersen
Patient Education and Counseling, 2009, Volume 77, Number 2, Page 151
[11]
Christiane S. Hartog
Patient Education and Counseling, 2009, Volume 77, Number 2, Page 172
[12]
Maggie Evans, Charlotte Paterson, Lesley Wye, Russ Chapman, Jane Robinson, Rosemary Norton, and Richard Bertschinger
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2011, Volume 17, Number 6, Page 519
[13]
John Chatwin
The Sociological Review, 2009, Volume 57, Number 1, Page 163
[14]
Alison Pilnick, Jon Hindmarsh, and Virginia Teas Gill
Sociology of Health & Illness, 2009, Volume 31, Number 6, Page 787
[15]
John Chatwin
Communication Medicine, 2006, Volume 3, Number 2, Page 113
[16]
William Evans
Health Communication, 2006, Volume 19, Number 3, Page 277

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in