• Evelyn Y Ho, Robert R Agne, Trilce Santana, Nicole Thompson, Genevieve McClendon, Eliza Ng, Shannette Merrick, Felicia Gonzalez, Tenaya Smith, Kathleen Drewke, Amalia Gutierrez, Gary Floyd, and Maria T Chao.
• Department of Communication Studies, University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, Communication Studies KA 313, San Francisco, CA, 94117, USA. eyho@usfca.edu.
• J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Apr 1; 37 (Suppl 1): 9910499-104.

AbstractStakeholder advisory boards are recognized as an essential and useful part of patient-centered research. However, such engagement can involve exchanges of diverse individual experiences, multiple opinions, and strong feelings in the face of researchers' limitations, deadlines, and agendas. Yet, little work examines how these potential tensions occur and are resolved in actual advisory board meetings. This perspective article describes and employs a communication framework for analyzing a patient advisory council (PAC) for a comparative effectiveness study on acupuncture and pain counseling for inpatients with cancer. The framework, Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis (AIDA), is an observational method that examines challenges through recorded and transcribed, naturally occurring interaction. Our analysis focused on two short excerpts from the first PAC meeting to demonstrate members' navigation of advice-giving and advice-receiving-one in which advice was ultimately implemented by the study team and another in which it was deemed unfeasible. Although advice is inherent to the work of all PACs, it often emerges unannounced as negotiated moments, made up of seemingly minor conversation moves. As a recurring event, advice can and should be analyzed and discussed within PACs to improve communication and team dynamics.© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.

11 keywords...

hide…