Context: Interruptions have often been negatively associated with the exertion of power in interaction and breaking into the other’s conversational turn, in particular within the institutionalized context of medical interactions. However, linguistic studies have shown that interruptions often characterise interactions as a joint activity. It is yet unknown how and when physicians and patients in different sex dyad compositions use various forms and functions of interruptions in interactions in primary care. The study adds to existing literature and knowledge for primary care by focusing on (1) various forms and functions of interruptions, (2) speaker’s role and speaker’s sex, and (3) two important phases of the consultation. Objective: The present study aims to examine how and when physicians and patients in different sex dyad compositions use various forms and functions of interruptions in interactions in primary care. Study Design: A systematic and detailed quantitative analysis of interruptions by means of a developed and tested codebook. Setting or Dataset: Videorecorded primary care consultations, including all four sex dyad compositions (e.g., a female general practitioner and a male patient). Population studied: Consultations of 80 patients with common somatic symptoms, matched on patient’s age, assessment of symptoms (i.e., (un)explained), and first visits vs. follow-up consultations. Outcome Measures: The form and function of general practitioners’ and patients’ interruptions during the phase of problem presentation and anamnesis, and the phase of diagnosis and treatment. Utterances prior to the interruptions are coded on topic and content. Outcomes to be reported: It is expected that most interruptions will be cooperative, e.g., providing assistance or asking for clarification, which is in contrast with the idea of interruptions as intrusive acts. It will be reported to what extent the form and function of the interruptions differ depending on speaker’s medical role, speaker’s sex, sex dyad composition, and consultation phase. The findings will presumably demonstrate that interruptions are not necessarily a tool to exert power or dominance, and that GPs and patients – independent of their sex – use various forms and functions of interruptions for the purpose of particular interactional goals in the different phases of the consultation.