Video recordings of oncology interviews reveal how doctors rely on worry to establish medical expertise, facilitate treatment decision-making, and construct worry parameters to help patients understand whether there is a reasonable need for worry or not. Doctors express worry as frequently as cancer patients during oncology interviews, but they face a dilemma: how to provide care for cancer patients without directly stating they are worried about them? Plausible explanations are offered for why doctors do not state personal worries. Conversation analytic methods were employed to identify how doctors rely on worry to achieve distinct social actions. Four worry formulations are examined: (1) variations of "we worry" (and at times, non-specific and second person "you"), (2) hypothetical worry scenarios, (3) dismissing worry and offering assurance, and (4) doctors claiming they are not worried, bothered, or alarmed. Doctors align with and speak for the professionals and institutions they represent, expressing collective worries and claiming the legitimate right to worry (or not). Doctors also avoid abandoning patients to their own decision-making, yet do not formulate worry to coerce deference or dictate patients' choices. In all cases patients agreed and displayed minimal resistance to doctors' worry formulations. These findings contribute to ongoing work across institutional settings where participants have been shown to construct objective, legitimate claims meriting worries about diverse problems. Work is underway to examine when and how patients explicitly raise and doctors respond to cancer worries. Clinical implications are raised for how doctors can use worry to legitimize best treatment options, help patients minimize their worries, rely on hypothetical scenarios allowing patients to compare how other patients managed their cancer, and not dismiss the importance of minimizing the need to worry as a resource for offering reassurance.

Our review highlights state-of-the-art conversation analytic (CA) research within adult outpatient secondary care settings and how this research has been applied to clinical practice, provides reflections, and considers fruitful areas for future research. Findings from 128 articles were synthesized according to five clinical activities that have been the focus of CA research thus far: (1) information gathering and patients' descriptions of their symptoms/condition; (2) information delivery, including test results and diagnosis; (3) decision making about goals, treatment, and future care; (4) interacting about sensitive issues, including patients' emotions and psychosocial concerns; and (5) managing the interactional role of companions accompanying patients in adult outpatient secondary care appointments. Research in these settings has been used in healthcare policy/guidelines and designing training interventions for clinical practice. Within future CA research in outpatient secondary care, there is scope for more longitudinal studies and further exploring interactions in multidisciplinary care. Data examples are in multiple languages.

Over a decade ago, in the 100th issue of Health Communication (Volume 25, issues 6-7); 2010), 30 "impact" articles addressed how our collective research findings had been translated to make a positive difference for persons across diverse communities. It is laudable to develop projects helping others to enhance their awareness about healthy living, refine practical communication skills to promote behavioral change, and rely on findings to enact important practices and policies giving priority to how well and long we live in contemporary society. As a preview, however, an article entitled "Why is it so difficult to talk about impact?" raised a series of inherent challenges faced whenever we conduct our research to advance basic knowledge by pursuing meaningful translation opportunities. These efforts are constrained in various ways: A lack of motivation, ability, and training to envision and implement protocols beneficial for the public good; the need to procure adequate resources (e.g., time and money) for sustaining longitudinal investigations; dealing with misconceptions that "applied" communication research has less value than "basic" studies; and creating and managing cross-disciplinary collaborations necessary to achieve project goals. When designing interventions to change others' lives in meaningful ways, attention must also be given to balancing community outreach while avoiding unnecessary self-promotion and imposition of social scientific priorities.

Abstract The study of communication as it relates to health and healthcare delivery has historically come from two key directions: research on provider-patient interaction and research on public health campaigns. This chapter will address the first of those areas as well as some other aspects of interpersonal health communication, as those are most relevant to the heart of the present volume. The present chapter will overview the significant directions that have been evident in health communication research and theory over the course of the last several decades. In addition to providing historical context for such work, important examples of research methods and relevant theory will be discussed.

This analysis integrates Arthur Frank's timeless revelations about woundedness within the communication context of an oncology interview. A Patient whose life is threatened by recurrent metastatic breast cancer claims personal knowledge and visibly demonstrates impacts from illness experiences. Conversation Analysis (CA) was conducted on a video recorded and transcribed case study involving a Patient, her husband, and co-present oncologists. By focusing on narratives as talk-in-interaction, grounded exemplars are provided of primary interactional achievements: How woundedness gets displayed and responded to with empathy and compassionate witnessing; Patient's flooding out with emotion and potential embarrassment; attempting to regain control and resume talking about her condition; and the serial organization of crying and laughter when managing noticeably delicate moments. In this interview, woundedness is not discounted or dismissed but recognized as legitimate suffering meriting shared commiseration. Understanding how to enact humane and communicatively competent skills during emotionally uncertain moments can enhance medical education.

Abstract Cancer is one of the most feared diseases worldwide. In the United States cancer is the second leading cause of death (after cardiovascular disease), and impacts three out of every four families. Cancer fears are critically important for health communication research, intervention, education, and behavioral change. For the general population as well as previously diagnosed cancer survivors fearing recurrence, excessive fears can threaten health by promoting adverse consequences such as anxiety, stress, delays of important clinical visitations, and avoidance of screenings. Manageable fears may also motivate routine check‐ups and healthy lifestyle choices. A close examination of research methods employed to investigate cancer fears, and successful interventions designed to alleviate fearful orientations, reveals a predominant focus on individuals' psychological and emotional burdens. These approaches could be enhanced by integrating close examinations of naturally occurring health communication events, and their impacts on social relationships, across a myriad of daily health scenarios. By focusing on natural histories of interactions in both casual (e.g., home) and clinical settings, more comprehensive and multi‐methodological approaches to cancer fears and care can be designed. A grounded understanding of how cancer fears get interactionally managed, and their social consequences, can facilitate the creation of innovative and effective strategies for designing, implementing, and evaluating health communication campaigns. Two video‐based exemplars are provided of longitudinal health communication research translated into media campaigns for the public good: family cancer journeys from diagnosis through death of a loved one, and throughout breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, surgery, breast reconstruction, and remission.

This case study focuses on a video telehealth consult to discuss genetic testing results. Participants include a Genetic Counselor (GC) and a Patient (P) previously diagnosed with ovarian cancer who is currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Utilizing conversation analysis (CA), attention is first given to a series of interactional dilemmas as GC delivers and P responds to negative, uncertain, and complex test results. Specific findings address practices employed by GC to structure the encounter and establish authority, impacts on P's participation and understandings, recurring and at times problematic orientations to "negative" findings, and inherent ambiguities faced by GC and P when attempting to discern good and bad news. Close examination of these moments provides a unique opportunity to identify, describe, and explain genetic counseling as a co-produced, interactional achievement. These findings are then integrated with patient's post-counseling survey (susceptibility, anxiety, uncertainty, fear, and hope), including reported experiences which broaden understandings of the interactional environment. Specific recommendations are raised for improving counseling skills, enhancing patients' understandings, and building therapeutic alliances addressing both patients' emotional circumstances and the complexities of genetic test results.

This study focuses on oncology interviews with returning patients who have been diagnosed with cancer, are undergoing various treatment regimens, and have been informed by doctors of their current “stable” medical condition. Conversation analysis was conducted on 112 video recorded and transcribed oncology interviews involving 30 doctors. In 44 of 112 (39 percent) interviews, doctors announced stable as good cancer news. In response, patients rarely affirm stable as good news for them. Nonreponses and minimal responses lacking enthusiasm occurred in one third of instances, and in the majority of interactions, patients resisted and questioned impacts of the need to endure ongoing treatments yet reduced possibilities for cancer shrinkage or remission. These interactional disjunctures reflect epistemic dilemmas for doctors seeking to provide quality care and especially for patients who must simultaneously manage good and bad news. Findings extend ongoing research and theoretical development that address the social psychological burdens inherent in disappointment, medical diagnosis, and prognosis. A focus on how patients and doctors manage stable cancer reveals recurring tensions between patients’ lay experiences with illness and how doctors give biomedical priority to controlling cancer.

Sequential environments are identified when core functions of “Okays”, acknowledging and accepting prior speaker's actions, are identified as unmarked utterances produced in short duration and with little or no pitch movement (e.g., “Okay.” or “‘Kay.”). Attention is then given to how particular marked “Okays” can be identified through features such as added syllable duration, accentuation, and raised or lowered pitch onset (e.g., “O::ka::y?”, “↑Ok:a::y.”, “O::↓k(hhh)a:::y.”). Analysis focuses on how marked “Okay” usages deviate from and thus play off of core acknowledgment and acceptance. A range of incongruous social actions are examined displaying epistemic stances that prior speaker's actions are, with varying intensity, “not okay”: 1) Prefacing disagreement and adversarial opposition; 2) Aggravated repetitions resisting, yet reluctantly complying with, others' requests or commands; and 3) Responding to prior actions as odd or bizarre. Data are drawn from a large collection of “Okays” in ordinary American conversations and institutional interactions.

'Defining moments' are revealed by weaving three strands together in this essay. First, by reenacting stories as 'tell-aboutables,' 'defining moments' are achieved through participants' methods for drawing attention to significant events. Occasioned reconstructions are designed by speakers as timely and worthy to be heard, responded to, and appreciated by recipients. In turn, 'defining moments' of shared existence emerge through next stories, serial orderings of storytelling achievements exposing (in Goffman's terms) less about people and their moments than moments and their people. Second, numerous examples are provided of how stories about cancer comprise altogether routine everyday life activities for patients, family members, and providers. 'Defining moments' can and do become radically re-defined when landscapes of wellness give way to progressive entanglements and forfeitures of sickness. When 'health' comes into play, it is not uncommon for priorities to be given less to self-promotion (e.g. blaming and boasting), and more to efforts designed to optimize mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical well-being. Third, personal stories about 'defining moments' are shared from my long-term investigations of family cancer and patient-oncologist interactions. A vibrant reflexivity is cultivated when we recognize that, and how, our basic research can be successfully translated to advance the public good.

One proposition of Entertainment Education (EE) suggests that actors communicating messages should be ethnically and culturally homogenous with targeted audiences. The present study challenges this assumption by investigating audience evaluations of When Cancer Calls... (WCC), a unique 80-minute theatrical production based on actual phone conversations between family members dealing with a loved one's cancer diagnosis, treatment, and eventual death. In WCC, the family is White and all interactions are drawn verbatim from 61 recorded phone calls made over 13 months. This study addresses whether authentic family storytelling about cancer minimizes differences between the White family in WCC, diverse Persons of Color (POC), and specifically how WCC resonates with Black Americans' cancer experiences. Data collected (n=483) from audiences in four U.S. cities confirmed overall positive audience reactions to viewings of WCC. Blacks were significantly more likely to evaluate WCC favorably than Whites or other POC. Rooted in the prominence of oral communication traditions, these findings confirm the power of family storytelling as a vehicle for designing health communication campaigns for Black American audiences. For example, when Blacks were forbidden to learn how to read and write during American slavery, family storytelling was a powerful tool for preserving history, sharing news, resisting racism in hostile environments, and sustaining resilience necessary for survival. These WCC findings provide innovative strategies for facilitating communication among cancer patients and family members, especially Black Americans who are deeply affected and face ongoing challenges talking about cancer.

Caring for health in times of crisis creates daunting challenges and unique opportunities to impact others’ lives in meaningful ways. Time and timing are critical, unexpected circumstances arise, a...

Only minimal attention has been given to analyzing interactional moments when patients and providers talk about "pain" in general consultations and primary care, and no attention has focused on how pain gets managed during oncology interviews. Conversation analysis (CA) is used to examine a sampling of instances drawn from a collection of 146 pain instances across 65 video recorded and transcribed clinical encounters in a comprehensive cancer clinic. Specific attention is drawn to how pain descriptions are not static but malleable as cancer patients upgrade, downgrade, and produce combined orientations when making their experiences available to oncologists. In response, it is shown that doctors acknowledge patients' descriptions, but do not elaborate nor affiliate with, important pain disclosures. Three interactional environments are closely examined: 1) Reporting and responding to past pain/hurt incidents; 2) Doctor's missing assessments in response to good news announcements about patients' minimal pain; and 3) Patient-initiated pain responses to doctors' questions. These empirical findings confirm identified patterns of interactional asymmetries comprising pain events in UK consultations and USA primary care. Close examination of these social actions provides basic knowledge about how pain communication reframes historical understandings of individuals' pain experiences. Implications for future research are identified, and a protocol is described for how clinical practice and medical education can be improved by refining understandings of pain communication to promote increased sensitivities and more personalized responses to pain expressions.

Drawing from a sub-sample of video recorded and transcribed oncology interviews, Conversation Analysis is used to examine moments when cancer is portrayed as absent or minimally present but not dangerously invasive. Though cancer patients and their doctors invest considerable efforts pursuing life-affirming and hopeful possibilities advancing the quality of living and healing outcomes, little is known about how"good news" and thus hopeful social actions get organized. An interactional practice is identified for depicting tumor sizes as small or shrinking - a displayed preference to tumors that are large, growing, and spreading (i.e., metastasizing). By relying on gestural depictions (e.g., pinched fingers and open hands), in precise unison with paired lexical affiliates (e.g., tiny, little, nothing), it is shown how patients seek to justify their wellness and doctors offer reassurance by demonstrating that tumor sizes are minimally threatening. These interactional practices provide a needed balance to deathly cancer stereotypes, criticisms of health-care bureaucracies as inhumane, and overreliance on biomedical authority enacted during clinical encounters. A need exists to verify the existence of a benign social order in the midst of cancer care, actions designed to address malignant diagnoses by curtailing uncontrolled cancer growth.

Selected moments are analyzed from a corpus of 61 phone calls over a period of 13 months, the first natural history of family members talking through cancer from diagnosis through death of a loved one. Three alternative forms of interaction are examined: (1) the serial ordering of successive calls to different airline representatives; (2) tellings and retellings, across varying intervals of time and settings, regarding a loved one’s actions and health condition; and (3) cumulative practices employed by family members as resources maintaining a “state of readiness” for managing challenging circumstances (e.g., packing/unpacking bags). These courses of action transcend particular episodes, are situated in ongoing streams of interactional conduct, and have also been translated into a nationally disseminated educational program entitled When Cancer Calls….

The Face of Cancer, an article and patient's painting published nearly 15 years ago, has contributed in significant ways to a body of research focusing on communication during oncology interviews. Impacts from this painting helped to create a sensitivity for analyzing naturally occurring video recordings, including moments when patients' subjective experiences are raised and responded to. Analysis begins with how a melanoma patient's facial expression bears striking resemblance to the painting, vocal and other visible social actions (e.g., gaze, gesture), and how patient's story about a friend's metastatic cancer reveals her primal fears and hopes about cancer. Actions displayed by other patients (breast, testicular, abdominal, and leukemia) are also examined to unmask how their faces and bodies make cancer visible, doctors' responses, and the complexities of how patients' stressful stories get constructed. Implications are raised for improving patient-provider relationships by offering more personalized care. Understanding how patients display their concerns and emotions, through spoken and embodied actions, enhances discernment about how best to provide tailored and supportive responses to patients' life-world experiences especially, but not exclusively, when dealing with the stresses and angst of cancer.

Abstract Beginning with phone calls to an emergency psychiatric hospital and suicide prevention center, the roots of Conversation Analysis (CA) are embedded in systematic analyses of routine problems occurring between ordinary persons facing troubling health challenges, care providers, and the institutions they represent. After more than 50 years of research, CA is now a vibrant and robust mode of scientific investigation that includes close examination of a wide array of medical encounters between patients and their providers. Considerable efforts have been made to overview CA and medicine as a rapidly expanding mode of inquiry and field of research. Across a span of 18 years, we sample from 10 of these efforts to synthesize important priorities and findings emanating from CA investigations of diverse interactional practices and health care institutions. Key topics and issues are raised that provide a unique opportunity to identify and track the development and maturity of CA approaches to medical encounters. Attention is also given to promising new modes of research, and to the potential and challenges of improving medical practices by translating basic and rigorous empirical findings into innovative interventions for medical education. A case is made that increasing reliance on CA research can positively impact training and policies shaping the delivery of humane and quality medical care.