Aim: To describe (i) the topics participants talk about, (ii) the use of discursive space in consultations between patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their nurses and physicians, and (iii) the frequencies of the ways the patients, nurses and physicians introduce the topics.

Methods: Data were collected from 23 videotaped consultations concerning patients with AF as well as physicians and nurses, respectively. To obtain a description of topics discussed, the transcripts were analysed using content analysis. The patterns of dominance for the respective topic and participant were explored from the framework of analysis that treats dominance.

Results: Four topics were used by both nurses and physicians in the consultations. These were ‘pathophysiology’, ‘diagnostic procedures’, ‘treatment’ and ‘activity’. In the nurse–patient consultation an additional topic, ‘routines related to the physician’s responsibilities’, emerged. With respect to the number of words and turns, the distribution of the discourse space was almost equal between the nurses and patients and unequal between the physicians and patients. The healthcare professionals initiated the topics more frequently compared to the patients, whereby the medical approach recommended in the guidelines for AF could be recognized. The patients were the dominating initiators in the topic ‘activity’, which refers to the adaptation of activities in daily life in relation to the AF.

Conclusions: The medical-driven agenda dominates over the patient-driven agenda in consultations between healthcare professional and patients with AF. The patients initiated the conversations when discussing living with AF and were more talkative during conversations in nurse consultations.

Rationale: Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of stroke and it can be reduced by treatment with warfarin. Some patients consider that warfarin is a stressful treatment with undesired effects and the perceived barriers include unwillingness to take it. Knowledge of patients resisting warfarin treatment may be useful for the potential threat to maintaining shared decision-making in the consultation as a central tenet of person-centered medicine.

Aims and objectives: To identify how patients resist treatment with warfarin and how cardiologists respond to patients’ resistance. The co-constructive perspective of this work analyses the consultations by emphasizing the clinical communication strategies of both patients and cardiologists.

Method: Eleven videotaped consultations, in 4 different hospitals, were selected for analysis. Treatment interactions regarding warfarin between patients with AF and cardiologists were analysed, according to the methodology of conversation analysis.

Results: There were 4 types of resistance from patients for accepting treatment with warfarin. These included “Giving reasons for their resistance”, “Suggestion of another treatment option by the patient”, “Stating a treatment preference” and “Questioning or challenging the cardiologist’s treatment recommendation”. The cardiologists’ responses to the patients’ resistance included “Repeating the treatment recommendation”, “Negotiation with the patient”, “Providing additional information on the recommended treatment” and “Extending the explanation for the purpose of taking the treatment”.

Conclusions: By showing resistance, patients are thought to want to participate in their treatment decisions and an awareness of patients’ resistance to treatment enables cardiologists to address the patients’ experience-based views on their treatment and individual concerns as part of clinical strategies to increase the person-centeredness of medical intervention.