IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v266y2020ics0277953620306328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One last round of chemo? Insights from conversations between oncologists and lung cancer patients about prognosis and treatment decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Hauge, Amalie M.

Abstract

One more chemo or one too many? The increasing use of expensive cancer treatments close to the patient's death is often explained by oncologists' failure to communicate to patients how close to dying they are, implying that patients are often both ill-prepared and over-treated when they die. This article aims at interrogating the politically charged task of prognosticating. Drawing on an ethnographic study of conversations between oncologists and patients with metastatic lung cancer in a Danish oncology clinic, I show that oncologists utilize, rather than avoid, prognostication in their negotiations with patients about treatment withdrawal. The study informs the emerging sociology of prognosis in three ways: First, prognostication is not only about foreseeing and foretelling, but also about shaping the patient's process of dying. Second, oncologists prognosticate differently depending on the level of certainty about the patient's trajectory. To unfold these differences, the article provides a terminology that distinguishes between four ‘modes of prognostication’, namely hinting, informing, calibrating and organizing. Third, prognosticating can unfold over time through multiple consultations, emphasizing the relevance of adopting methodologies enabling the study of prognosticating over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Hauge, Amalie M., 2020. "One last round of chemo? Insights from conversations between oncologists and lung cancer patients about prognosis and treatment decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620306328
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620306328
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113413?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. Christakis, Nicholas A., 1997. "The ellipsis of prognosis in modern medical thought," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 301-315, February.
    2. Busfield, Joan, 2015. "Assessing the overuse of medicines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 199-206.
    3. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    4. Broom, Alex & Kirby, Emma & Good, Phillip & Wootton, Julia & Adams, Jon, 2013. "The art of letting go: Referral to palliative care and its discontents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 9-16.
    5. Mrig, Emily Hammad & Spencer, Karen Lutfey, 2018. "Political economy of hope as a cultural facet of biomedicalization: A qualitative examination of constraints to hospice utilization among U.S. end-stage cancer patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 107-113.
    6. Seale, Clive & Addington-Hall, Julia & McCarthy, Mark, 1997. "Awareness of dying: Prevalence, causes and consequences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 477-484, August.
    7. Timmermans, Stefan & Stivers, Tanya, 2018. "Clinical forecasting: Towards a sociology of prognosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 13-20.
    8. Baszanger, Isabelle, 2012. "One more chemo or one too many? Defining the limits of treatment and innovation in medical oncology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(5), pages 864-872.
    9. Davis, Courtney, 2015. "Drugs, cancer and end-of-life care: A case study of pharmaceuticalization?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 207-214.
    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. Armstrong, David, 2019. "Diagnosis: From classification to prediction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Tate, Alexandra, 2022. "Death and the treatment imperative: Decision-making in late-stage cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    3. Duberstein, Paul R. & Hoerger, Michael & Norton, Sally A. & Mohile, Supriya & Dahlberg, Britt & Hyatt, Erica Goldblatt & Epstein, Ronald M. & Wittink, Marsha N., 2023. "The TRIBE model: How socioemotional processes fuel end-of-life treatment in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    4. Cambrosio, Alberto & Campbell, Jonah & Keating, Peter & Polk, Jessica B. & Aguilar-Mahecha, Adriana & Basik, Mark, 2022. "Healthcare policy by other means: Cancer clinical research as “oncopolicy”," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    5. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    6. Gutin, Iliya, 2022. "Not ‘putting a name to it’: Managing uncertainty in the diagnosis of childhood obesity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    7. van Wijngaarden, Els & Leget, Carlo & Goossensen, Anne, 2015. "Ready to give up on life: The lived experience of elderly people who feel life is completed and no longer worth living," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 257-264.
    8. Stacey, Clare L. & Pai, Manacy & Novisky, Meghan A. & Radwany, Steven M., 2019. "Revisiting ‘awareness contexts’ in the 21st century hospital: How fragmented and specialized care shape patients' Awareness of Dying," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 212-218.
    9. Cohen, Joachim & Bilsen, Johan & Hooft, Peter & Deboosere, Patrick & Wal, Gerrit van der & Deliens, Luc, 2006. "Dying at home or in an institution: Using death certificates to explore the factors associated with place of death," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(2-3), pages 319-329, October.
    10. Thomas, Felicity & Depledge, Michael, 2015. "Medicine ‘misuse’: Implications for health and environmental sustainability," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 81-87.
    11. Pavolini, Emmanuele & Kuhlmann, Ellen & Agartan, Tuba I. & Burau, Viola & Mannion, Russell & Speed, Ewen, 2018. "Healthcare governance, professions and populism: Is there a relationship? An explorative comparison of five European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(10), pages 1140-1148.
    12. de Barra, Mícheál, 2017. "Reporting bias inflates the reputation of medical treatments: A comparison of outcomes in clinical trials and online product reviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 248-255.
    13. Chabot, Boudewijn E. & Goedhart, Arnold, 2009. "A survey of self-directed dying attended by proxies in the Dutch population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1745-1751, May.
    14. Roberts, Simon H. & Foran, Barney D. & Axon, Colin J. & Stamp, Alice V., 2021. "Is the service industry really low-carbon? Energy, jobs and realistic country GHG emissions reductions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    15. Thomas, Carol, 2005. "The place of death of cancer patients: can qualitative data add to known factors?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 2597-2607, June.
    16. Gabe, Jonathan & Williams, Simon J. & Coveney, Catherine M., 2017. "Prescription hypnotics in the news: A study of UK audiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 43-52.
    17. Shachar, Leeor, 2022. "“You become a slightly better doctor”: Doctors adopting integrated medical expertise through interactions with E-patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    18. Fatigante, Marilena & Heritage, John & Alby, Francesca & Zucchermaglio, Cristina, 2020. "Presenting treatment options in breast cancer consultations: Advice and consent in Italian medical care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    19. Timmermans, Stefan & Stivers, Tanya, 2018. "Clinical forecasting: Towards a sociology of prognosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 13-20.
    20. Maximilian Pausch & Angela Schedlbauer & Maren Weiss & Thomas Kuehlein & Susann Hueber, 2020. "Is it really always only the others who are to blame? GP’s view on medical overuse. A questionnaire study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, 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:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620306328. 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.