“Cos You’re Quite Normal, Aren’t You?”: Epistemic and Deontic Orientations in the Presentation of Model of Care Talk in Antenatal Consultations

References

• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2018). Australia’s mothers and babies (Perinatal statistics series no. 34. Cat. no. PER 97). Canberra: AIHW.
   Google Scholar
• Bayly, M. K. (2017). The moral dimensions of contemporary childbirth (Doctoral dissertation). University of Saskatchewan, Canada. Retrieved from https://harvest.usask.ca/handle/10388/7728
   Google Scholar
• Bernhard, C., Zielinski, R., Ackerson, K., & English, J. (2014). Home birth after hospital birth: Women’s choices and reflections. Journal of Midwifery Womens Health, 59, 160–166. doi:10.1111/jmwh.12113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 974–998. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownlee, S., Chalkidou, K., Doust, J., Elshaug, A., Glasziou, P., Heath, I., … Chalmers, K. (2017). Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. The Lancet, 390, 156–168. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, R. (2009). Improving maternity services in Australia: The report of the maternity services review ( Australia Co, Ed.). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlen, H., Barclay, L., & Homer, C. S. (2008). The novice birthing: Theorising first-time mothers’ experiences of birth at home and in hospital in Australia. Midwifery, 26, 53–63. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2008.01.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlen, H., Tracy, S. K., Tracy, M., Bisits, A., Brown, C., & Thornton, C. (2014). Rates of obstetric intervention and associated perinatal mortality and morbidity among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW (2000–2008): A linked data population-based cohort study. British Medical Journal Open, 4, e004551. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis-Floyd, R. (2001). The technocratic, humanistic and holistic paradigms of childbirth. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 75, S5–S23. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(01)00510-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (studies in interactional sociolinguistics). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feeley, C. (2017). Guideline-centred care or woman-centred care? A debate and discussion. The Practising Midwife, 20, 8–11.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, R., & Houseley, W. (Eds.). (2015). Advances in membership categorisation analysis. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gutzmer, K., & Beach, W. A. (2015). “Having an ovary this big is not normal”: Physicians’ use of normal to assess wellness and sickness during oncology interviews. Health Communication, 30, 8–18. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.881176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Interrogating tears: Some uses of ‘tag questions’ in a child protection helpline. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why Do You Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2011). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Maynard, D. W. (2006). Problems and prospects in the study of physician-patient interaction: 30 years of research. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 351–374. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.32.082905.093959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Robinson, J. (2006). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: Physicians’ opening questions. Health Communication, 19, 89–102. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1902_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 359–417). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hodnett, E., Downe, S., & Walsh, D. (2012). Alternative versus conventional instiutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 18. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000012.pub4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt, E. (2000). Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 425–454. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_04
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homer, C. S. E., Davis, G. K., Cooke, M., & Barclay, L. M. (2002). Women’s experiences of continuity of midwifery care in a randomised controlled trial in Australia. Midwifery, 18, 102–112. doi:10.1054/midw.2002.0298
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Pragmatics and beyond New Series, 125, 13–34.
   Google Scholar
• Johanson, R., Newburn, M., & Macfarlane, A. (2002). Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far? British Medical Journal, 324, 892–895. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7342.892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenig, C. J. (2011). Patient resistance as agency in treatment decisions. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 1105–1114. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landmark, A. M. D., Gulbrandsen, P., & Svennevig, J. (2015). Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 54–69. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindstrom, A., & Weatherall, A. (2015). Orientations to epistemics and deontics in treatment discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 39–53. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malacrida, C., & Boulton, T. (2014). The best laid plans? Women’s choices, expectations and experiences in childbirth. Health, 18, 41–55. doi:10.1177/1363459313476964
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W., & Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis, doctor–patient interaction and medical communication. Medical Education, 39, 428–435. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02111.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCourt, C. (2006). Supporting choice and control? Communication and interaction between midwives and women at the antenatal booking visit. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 1307–1318. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.07.031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, S., Abalos, E., Chamillard, M., Ciapponi, A., Colaci, D., Comandé, D., … Althabe, F. (2016). Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: A pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. The Lancet, 388, 2176–2192. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31472-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Health and Medical Research Council. (2010). National guidance on collaborative maternity care (NHMRC). Australian Capital Territory, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Nishizaka, A. (2010). Self-initated problem presentation in prenatal checkups: It’s placement and construction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 283–313. doi:10.1080/08351813.2010.497992
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishizaka, A. (2011). Response expansion as a practice for raising a concern during regular prenatal checkups. Communication & Medicine, 8, 247–259. doi:10.1558/cam.v8i3.247
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Petraki, E., & Clark, S. (2016). Affliating through agreements: The context of antenatal consultations. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 36, 273–289. doi:10.1080/07268602.2015.1121535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilnick, A. (2008). ‘It’s something for you both to think about’: Choice and decision making in nuchal translucency screening for Down’s syndrome. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30, 511–530. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01071.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilnick, A., & Zayts, O. (2016). Advice, authority and autonomy in shared decision-making in antenatal screening: The importance of context. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38, 343–359. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12346
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967. doi:10.2307/1519752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 185–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2003). An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients’ participation. Health Communicaiton, 15, 27–59. doi:10.1207/S15327027HC1501_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson, S. J., Laws, P., & Sullivan, E. A. (2009). Adverse outcomes of labour in public and private hospitals in Australia: A population-based descriptive study. Medical Journal of Australia, 190, 474–477. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02521.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Root, R., & Browner, C. (2001). Practices of the pregnant self: Compliance with and resistance to prenatal norms. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 25, 195–223. doi:10.1023/a:1010665726205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Gates, S., Shennan, A., & Devane, D. (2016). Midwife‐led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smyth, L. (2012). The demands of motherhood: Agents, roles and recongition. Basingstoke, GB: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Spinelli, M., Frigerio, A., Montali, L., Fasolo, M., Simonetta Spada, M., & Mangili, G. (2016). ‘I still have difficulties feeling like a mother’: The transition to motherhood of pretern infants mothers. Psychology & Health, 31, 184–204. doi:10.1080/08870446.2015.1088015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 297–321. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teate, A. (2018). From worry to hope: An ethnography of midwife-woman interactions in the antenatal appointment (Doctoral dissertation). Western Sydney University, Australia. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:48154
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, T., Robinson, J., & Brashers, D. (2011). Interpersonal communication and health care. In M. Knapp & J. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 696–735). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Toerien, M., Shaw, R., & Reuber, M. (2013). Initiating decision-making in neurology consultations: ‘recommending’ versus ‘option-listing’ and the implications for medical authority. Sociology of Health & Illness, 35, 873–890. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, D., & Devane, D. (2012). A metasynthesis of midwife-led care. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 897–910. doi:10.1177/1049732312440330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. (2018). WHO recommendations: Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/260178/9789241550215-eng.pdf
   Google Scholar