LAUSR

OBJECTIVE With the intention of understanding the dynamics of psychiatric interviews, we investigated the usual (DSM/ICD-based) psychiatric assessment process and an alternative assessment process based on a case formulation method. We compared the two different approaches in terms of the clinicians' practices for offering patients opportunities to reveal their subjective experiences. METHODS Using qualitative and quantitative applications of conversation analysis, we compared patient-clinician interaction in five usual psychiatric assessments (AAU) with five assessment interviews based on dialogical sequence analysis (DSA). RESULTS The frequency of conversational sequences where the patient described his/her problematic experiences was higher in the DSA interviews than in the AAU interviews. In DSA, the clinicians typically facilitated the patient's subjective experience talk by experience-focused questions and formulations, whereas in AAU, such talk typically occurred in environments where the clinicians' questions and formulations focused on non-experiential, medical matters. CONCLUSION Interaction in DSA was organized to provide for the patient's experience-focused talk, whereas in AAU, the patient needed to go against the conversational grain to produce such talk. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS By facilitating patients' opportunities to uncover subjective experiences, it is possible to promote their individualized care planning in psychiatry.