IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v159y2016icp108-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The doctor-patient relationship as a toolkit for uncertain clinical decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Diamond-Brown, Lauren

Abstract

Medical uncertainty is a well-recognized problem in healthcare, yet how doctors make decisions in the face of uncertainty remains to be understood. This article draws on interdisciplinary literature on uncertainty and physician decision-making to examine a specific physician response to uncertainty: using the doctor-patient relationship as a toolkit. Additionally, I ask what happens to this process when the doctor-patient relationship becomes fragmented. I answer these questions by examining obstetrician-gynecologists’ narratives regarding how they make decisions when faced with uncertainty in childbirth. Between 2013 and 2014, I performed 21 semi-structured interviews with obstetricians in the United States. Obstetricians were selected to maximize variation in relevant physician, hospital, and practice characteristics. I began with grounded theory and moved to analytical coding of themes in relation to relevant literature. My analysis renders it evident that some physicians use the doctor-patient relationship as a toolkit for dealing with uncertainty. I analyze how this process varies for physicians in different models of care by comparing doctors’ experiences in models with continuous versus fragmented doctor-patient relationships. My key findings are that obstetricians in both models appealed to the ideal of patient-centered decision-making to cope with uncertain decisions, but in practice physicians in fragmented care faced a number of challenges to using the doctor-patient relationship as a toolkit for decision-making. These challenges led to additional uncertainties and in some cases to poor outcomes for doctors and/or patients; they also raised concerns about the reproduction of inequality. Thus organization of care delivery mitigates the efficacy of doctors’ use of the doctor-patient relationship toolkit for uncertain decisions. These findings have implications for theorizing about decision-making under conditions of medical uncertainty, for understanding how the doctor-patient relationship and model of care affect physician decision-making, and for forming policy on the optimal structure of medical work.

Suggested Citation

  • Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2016. "The doctor-patient relationship as a toolkit for uncertain clinical decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 108-115.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:159:y:2016:i:c:p:108-115
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616302118
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Neeraj K. Arora, 2011. "Varieties of Uncertainty in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 828-838, November.
    2. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    3. Miller, Amy Chasteen & Shriver, Thomas E., 2012. "Women's childbirth preferences and practices in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 709-716.
    4. Armstrong, David, 2002. "Clinical autonomy, individual and collective: the problem of changing doctors' behaviour," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(10), pages 1771-1777, November.
    5. Mykhalovskiy, Eric & Weir, Lorna, 2004. "The problem of evidence-based medicine: directions for social science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 1059-1069, September.
    6. Clark, Jack A. & Potter, Deborah A. & McKinlay, John B., 1991. "Bringing social structure back into clinical decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 853-866, January.
    7. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    8. Lambert, Helen & Gordon, Elisa J. & Bogdan-Lovis, Elizabeth A., 2006. "Introduction: Gift horse or Trojan horse? Social science perspectives on evidence-based health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2613-2620, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tzu-Jung Chou & Yu-Rui Wu & Jaw-Shiun Tsai & Shao-Yi Cheng & Chien-An Yao & Jen-Kuei Peng & Tai-Yuan Chiu & Hsien-Liang Huang, 2021. "Telehealth-Based Family Conferences with Implementation of Shared Decision Making Concepts and Humanistic Communication Approach: A Mixed-Methods Prospective Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Kroll, Camille & Murphy, Julia & Poston, Lindsay & You, Whitney & Premkumar, Ashish, 2022. "Cultivating the ideal obstetrical patient: How physicians-in-training describe pain associated with childbirth," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2018. "“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 48-54.
    2. Clinch, Megan & Benson, John, 2013. "Making information ‘relevant’: General Practitioner judgments and the production of patient involvement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 104-111.
    3. Timmermans, Stefan & Almeling, Rene, 2009. "Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 21-27, July.
    4. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    5. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    6. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    7. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    8. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    9. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    10. Peek, Monica E. & Odoms-Young, Angela & Quinn, Michael T. & Gorawara-Bhat, Rita & Wilson, Shannon C. & Chin, Marshall H., 2010. "Race and shared decision-making: Perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-9, July.
    11. May, Carl, 2013. "Agency and implementation: Understanding the embedding of healthcare innovations in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-33.
    12. Entwistle, Vikki & Williams, Brian & Skea, Zoe & MacLennan, Graeme & Bhattacharya, Siladitya, 2006. "Which surgical decisions should patients participate in and how? Reflections on women's recollections of discussions about variants of hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 499-509, January.
    13. Glory Apantaku & Magda Aguiar & K. Julia Kaal & Patrick J. McDonald & Mary B. Connolly & Viorica Hrincu & Judy Illes & Mark Harrison, 2022. "Understanding Attributes that Influence Physician and Caregiver Decisions About Neurotechnology for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Formative Qualitative Study to Support the Development of a Dis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 219-232, March.
    14. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    15. Hardman, Doug & Geraghty, Adam W.A. & Lown, Mark & Bishop, Felicity L., 2020. "Subjunctive medicine: Enacting efficacy in general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    16. France Légaré & Stéphane Turcotte & Dawn Stacey & Stéphane Ratté & Jennifer Kryworuchko & Ian Graham, 2012. "Patients’ Perceptions of Sharing in Decisions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, March.
    17. Bugge, Carol & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian S., 2006. "The significance for decision-making of information that is not exchanged by patients and health professionals during consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2065-2078, October.
    18. Simon N. Whitney & Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Howard Brody & Carl Schneider & Laurence B. McCullough & Robert J. Volk & Amy L. McGuire, 2008. "Beyond Shared Decision Making: An Expanded Typology of Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 699-705, September.
    19. Flora Kuehne & Linda Sanftenberg & Tobias Dreischulte & Jochen Gensichen, 2020. "Shared Decision Making Enhances Pneumococcal Vaccination Rates in Adult Patients in Outpatient Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Amber E. Barnato & Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & Ellen M. Peters & Laura Siminoff & E. Dale Collins & Michael J. Barry, 2007. "Communication and Decision Making in Cancer Care: Setting Research Priorities for Decision Support/Patients' Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 626-634, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:159:y:2016:i:c:p:108-115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.