Over de effectiviteit van organisatieadvisering en coaching is tot op heden weinig onderzoek gedaan. Dit onderzoek heeft als doel een bijdrage te leveren aan de kennisontwikkeling hierover. Een vragenlijst werd afgenomen bij 158 cliënten van coaches en organisatieadviseurs. Via de vragenlijst werd gezocht naar verbanden tussen enerzijds de manier van contracteren tussen adviseur en cliënt en de gevolgde aanpak in het adviestraject, en anderzijds de effectiviteit van het traject. Een van de meest opvallende conclusies is dat een cliëntgeleide manier van werken zoals die in de oplossingsgerichte benadering wordt gebruikt, waarbij de cliënt nadrukkelijk de regie heeft en de adviseur hier flexibel op reageert, sterk samenhangt met succes. Het artikel sluit af met enkele concrete aanbevelingen voor adviseurs en suggesties voor vervolgonderzoek.
In this article, we show how elderly clients in Dutch dietary consultations adjust dietitians’ history taking questions that suggest a cause for weight loss. Using conversation analysis and discursive psychology, we analyzed the history taking phase of recorded primary care conversations of 7 dietitians with 17 clients with malnutrition (risk). In response to the dietitian's history taking question, clients repeatedly present: 1) a problem in which weight loss is presented as unexpected and a conscious reduction in dietary intake is (therefore) not an issue, 2) a problem for which they cannot be held responsible, but which at the same time acts as a reason for reduced dietary intake, 3) a problem in which higher dietary intakes have been recommended by a third party that have proved impracticable. In these adjusted diagnostic explanations, clients emphasize the multidimensionality of their weight loss, which concurrently provides an explanation as to why they cannot be (solely) held responsible for their reduced dietary intake. Clients’ adjusted diagnostic explanations make relevant an evaluation by the dietitian. Dietitians’ subsequent lack of uptake leads to clients recycling diagnostic explanations to still get a response from the dietitian. Our findings offer insight into improving client-centered counseling by paying attention to clients’ adjusted diagnostic explanations.
Purpose: Collaborative deliberation comprises personal engagement, recognition of alternative actions, comparative learning, preference elicitation, and preference integration. Collaborative deliberation may be improved by assisting preference elicitation during shared decision-making. This study proposes a framework for preference elicitation to facilitate collaborative deliberation in long-term care consultations. Methods: First, a literature overview was conducted comprising current models for the elicitation of preferences in health and social care settings. The models were reviewed and compared. Second, qualitative research was applied to explore those issues that matter most to clients in long-term care. Data were collected from clients in long-term care, comprising 16 interviews, 3 focus groups, 79 client records, and 200 online client reports. The qualitative analysis followed a deductive approach. The results of the literature overview and qualitative research were combined. Results: Based on the literature overview, five overarching domains of preferences were described: “Health”, “Daily life”, “Family and friends”, ”Living conditions”, and “Finances”. The credibility of these domains was confirmed by qualitative data analysis. During interviews, clients addressed issues that matter in their lives, including a “click” with their care professional, safety, contact with loved ones, and assistance with daily structure and activities. These data were used to determine the content of the domains. Conclusion: A framework for preference elicitation in long-term care is proposed. This framework could be useful for clients and professionals in preference elicitation during collaborative deliberation.
