IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v266y2020ics0277953620305815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parents’ decision-making following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly in pregnancy: Practical, theoretical and ethical tensions

Author

Listed:
  • Paton, Alexis
  • Armstrong, Natalie
  • Smith, Lucy
  • Lotto, Robyn

Abstract

Patient involvement, in the form of shared decision-making, is advocated within healthcare. This is informed by the principlist account of patient autonomy that prioritises informed understanding, and decision-making free from coercion. This arguably over-simplifies the role of the social, whilst overlooking the role of culture and context in medical decision-making. Clinicians encourage patients to demonstrably make decisions in the principlist ‘style’ that fit with their understandings of ethically ‘correct’ ways to support patient decision-making. However, this expected ‘style’ is often not achieved in practice. In this article, we use empirical data from a qualitative study exploring parental decision-making following diagnosis or suspicion of a severe congenital anomaly in pregnancy. Our study was based in four fetal medicine clinics in England, comprising semi-structured interviews with 38 parents whose pregnancy was affected by a severe congenital anomaly, 18 interviews with fetal medicine clinicians, and audio-recordings of 48 consultations. Examination of the dynamics at play within different approaches to decision-making highlights how the idealised concepts proposed in theory fail to capture real-life experiences of medical decision-making. The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on decisions is brought to the fore, highlighting the influence of power dynamics in implicitly and explicitly influencing patient decisions, and the need to better address this in policy and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Paton, Alexis & Armstrong, Natalie & Smith, Lucy & Lotto, Robyn, 2020. "Parents’ decision-making following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly in pregnancy: Practical, theoretical and ethical tensions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620305815
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620305815
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113362?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. 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.
    2. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. May, Carl, 2013. "Agency and implementation: Understanding the embedding of healthcare innovations in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-33.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Specker Sullivan, Laura, 2017. "Dynamic axes of informed consent in Japan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 159-168.
    19. Christoph Engel & Werner Gueth, 2018. "Modeling a satisficing judge," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(2), pages 220-246, May.
    20. Michael Saheb Kashaf & Elizabeth McGill, 2015. "Does Shared Decision Making in Cancer Treatment Improve Quality of Life? A Systematic Literature Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 1037-1048, November.

    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:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620305815. 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.