IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v260y2020ics0277953620303701.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From anatomy to patient experience in pelvic floor surgery: Mindlines, evidence, responsibility, and transvaginal mesh

Author

Listed:
  • Ducey, Ariel
  • Donoso, Claudia
  • Ross, Sue
  • Robert, Magali

Abstract

Beginning in the late 1990s, surgeons around the world widely adopted the transvaginal placement of permanent synthetic mesh for the treatment of several common pelvic floor disorders in women. By 2012 it had become the subject of extensive litigation, including one of the biggest mass-tort cases in U.S. history, with litigants reporting debilitating and unexpected complications. Based on qualitative research that includes interviews with surgeons, observations of medical conferences, and analysis of archival materials, we argue the adoption of transvaginal mesh cannot be fully explained without recognizing the role of mindlines, or collective moral-epistemological ways of knowing and acting responsibly. The adoption of mesh was anchored in a mindline focused on repairing anatomy. The harms that resulted from transvaginal mesh necessitated a shift to a focus on patient experience. We analyze the role of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the re-organization of these surgeons’ mindlines, showing that mindlines are not reducible to evidence as defined by EBM and that evidence thus defined facilitated the adoption of transvaginal mesh.

Suggested Citation

  • Ducey, Ariel & Donoso, Claudia & Ross, Sue & Robert, Magali, 2020. "From anatomy to patient experience in pelvic floor surgery: Mindlines, evidence, responsibility, and transvaginal mesh," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:260:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620303701
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620303701
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113151?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. Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun & Strating, Mathilde & Nieboer, Anna & Bal, Roland, 2009. "Sociological refigurations of patient safety; ontologies of improvement and 'acting with' quality collaboratives in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1713-1721, December.
    2. Gordon, Deborah R. & Paci, Eugenio, 1997. "Disclosure practices and cultural narratives: Understanding concealment and silence around cancer in Tuscany, Italy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1433-1452, May.
    3. Martin, Graham P. & McKee, Lorna & Dixon-Woods, Mary, 2015. "Beyond metrics? Utilizing ‘soft intelligence’ for healthcare quality and safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 19-26.
    4. Cambrosio, Alberto & Keating, Peter & Schlich, Thomas & Weisz, George, 2006. "Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 189-199, July.
    5. Iedema, Rick, 2009. "New approaches to researching patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1701-1704, December.
    6. Waring, Justin J., 2009. "Constructing and re-constructing narratives of patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1722-1731, December.
    7. Greenhalgh, Joanne & Flynn, Rob & Long, Andrew F. & Tyson, Sarah, 2008. "Tacit and encoded knowledge in the use of standardised outcome measures in multidisciplinary team decision making: A case study of in-patient neurorehabilitation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 183-194, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ovretveit, John, 2009. "The contribution of new social science research to patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1780-1783, December.
    2. Nicolini, Davide & Waring, Justin & Mengis, Jeanne, 2011. "Policy and practice in the use of root cause analysis to investigate clinical adverse events: Mind the gap," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 217-225, July.
    3. Turner, Simon & Higginson, Juliet & Oborne, C. Alice & Thomas, Rebecca E. & Ramsay, Angus I.G. & Fulop, Naomi J., 2014. "Codifying knowledge to improve patient safety: A qualitative study of practice-based interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 169-176.
    4. Iedema, Rick, 2009. "New approaches to researching patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1701-1704, December.
    5. Doherty, Carole & Saunders, Mark N.K., 2013. "Elective surgical patients' narratives of hospitalization: The co-construction of safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 29-36.
    6. Sinclair, Craig & Smith, Jessica & Toussaint, Yann & Auret, Kirsten, 2014. "Discussing dying in the diaspora: Attitudes towards advance care planning among first generation Dutch and Italian migrants in rural Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 86-93.
    7. Geltzer, Anna, 2009. "When the standards aren't standard: Evidence-based medicine in the Russian context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 526-532, February.
    8. Lawton, Julia & Jenkins, Nicholas & Darbyshire, Julie & Farmer, Andrew & Holman, Rury & Hallowell, Nina, 2012. "Understanding the outcomes of multi-centre clinical trials: A qualitative study of health professional experiences and views," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(4), pages 574-581.
    9. Taipale, Jaakko & Hautamäki, Lotta, 2021. "Clinical practice guidelines in courts’ representation of medical evidence and testimony," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    10. Gutin, Iliya, 2022. "Not ‘putting a name to it’: Managing uncertainty in the diagnosis of childhood obesity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    11. Hooker, Claire & Hor, Suyin & Wyer, Mary & Gilbert, Gwendolyn L. & Jorm, Christine & Iedema, Rick, 2020. "Trajectories of hospital infection control: Using non-representational theory to understand and improve infection prevention and control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    12. Stoopendaal, Annemiek & Bal, Roland, 2013. "Conferences, tablecloths and cupboards: How to understand the situatedness of quality improvements in long-term care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 78-85.
    13. Broom, Alex & Adams, Jon & Tovey, Philip, 2009. "Evidence-based healthcare in practice: A study of clinician resistance, professional de-skilling, and inter-specialty differentiation in oncology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 192-200, January.
    14. Bourgain, Catherine & Pourtau, Lionel & Mazouni, Chafika & Bungener, Martine & Bonastre, et Julia, 2020. "Imperfect biomarkers for adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer with good prognosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    15. Senier, Laura & Smollin, Leandra & Lee, Rachael & Nicoll, Lauren & Shields, Michael & Tan, Catherine, 2018. "Navigating the evidentiary turn in public health: Sensemaking strategies to integrate genomics into state-level chronic disease prevention programs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 207-215.
    16. Stella Pachidi & Hans Berends & Samer Faraj & Marleen Huysman, 2021. "Make Way for the Algorithms: Symbolic Actions and Change in a Regime of Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 18-41, January.
    17. Bryce, Marie & Luscombe, Kayleigh & Boyd, Alan & Tazzyman, Abigail & Tredinnick-Rowe, John & Walshe, Kieran & Archer, Julian, 2018. "Policing the profession? Regulatory reform, restratification and the emergence of Responsible Officers as a new locus of power in UK medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 98-105.
    18. Knaapen, Loes & Cazeneuve, Hervé & Cambrosio, Alberto & Castel, Patrick & Fervers, Beatrice, 2010. "Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements: A case study of French clinical cancer guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 685-692, August.
    19. Martin, Graham P. & Chew, Sarah & Dixon-Woods, Mary, 2021. "Why do systems for responding to concerns and complaints so often fail patients, families and healthcare staff? A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    20. Michael C. Jackson & Luis G. Sambo, 2020. "Health systems research and critical systems thinking: the case for partnership," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 3-22, January.

    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:260:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620303701. 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.