This interview was conducted with a friend of mine who went to school together and grew up in the same environment. The respondent to this interview was over 23 years old at the time of the interview, had no children, and had never married but was in a relationship with his fiancée. The respondent works remotely every day, so he has a sedentary lifestyle; however, he tries to compensate by going to the gym and taking brisk walks outdoors several times a week. At first glance, the respondent does not appear morbid or dysfunctional, soberly reflecting and critically evaluating his life, emphasizing both strengths and weaknesses. Two interviewing approaches were used better to understand the respondent’s cultural and historical background. It is expected that this information should help improve nursing practice and optimize interactions with the patient.
An analysis of the responses received to both interview models at once yielded several conclusions about who the respondent is. First, he does not hold any orthodox or specific cultural beliefs, is not a religious person, and does not observe rituals. At no time during the interview did the patient describe himself as an atheist, which suggests that he is not prone to assigning labels and does not strictly deny supernatural forces. Strictly speaking, my impression is that he does not believe in religious entities and powers only because he has not encountered them before, but not because he has strong arguments against them. In addition, the respondent emphasized that he hates meditation but did not give reasons for this. It can be assumed that the patient had experienced meditation before, but it was not valuable or comfortable for him, which led to a persistent aversion to the practice.
From the point of view of social organizations, the patient is a communicative and capable individual interested in dialogue. He noted that he acts as a mediator if conflicts arise between his family members. Apparently, this is a comfortable role for him, allowing him to avoid open confrontation and to adhere to personal mental well-being. I have the impression that the mediator role is used by the respondent, among other things, because it allows him to maintain the image of a happy and friendly family, which means that it hides primarily a personal emotional motivation rather than a genuine desire to preserve the family. The respondent knows his personal boundaries very well and keeps strangers away from him, avoiding unwanted contact or conversation. Among others, the patient is attentive to time and does not tend to violate time limits; he has also been shown to be intolerant of others doing so. Notably, he gives the nurse up to 35 minutes in response to “about half an hour,” which means he is willing to make minor compromises during communication. Meanwhile, the patient has good friends with whom he likes to spend much time. All this tells me that in terms of social constructs, the patient is a well-developed individual with good communication skills.
An important observation on the part of the patient was the clarification of family alcoholism. As far as I know, my friend suffers from chronic asthma and frequent allergic reactions and also has poor eyesight, inherited from his mother. However, he did not disclose this during the interview but emphasized his deceased father’s alcoholism. Using this, I can assume that the topic of the family relationship with the father and/or the relationship with alcohol is a sensitive one for the patient, so I have to be careful not to hurt the patient’s feelings during communication. If I damage the patient’s emotional health, it has the potential to undermine trust and be disruptive to the effectiveness of therapy.
This analysis helps me to understand the patient better and identify some of the topics he or she is more interested in discussing during the interaction. In addition, I felt the patient’s interest during the interview, which means that in actual nursing practice, it helps to strengthen the trusting relationship and create the ground for constructive dialogue. In addition, I assumed a number of essential topics for the patient to avoid, so I should be more careful with this or check with the respondent directly if my assumptions are correct. The lessons identified allow me, as the initiator of the conversation, to frame the dialogue more intelligently with the patient and manage the communication in a way that has a more significant effect on improving therapy.