IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v42y1996i11p1511-1519.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Doctor-patient interactions in oncology

Author

Listed:
  • Ford, Sarah
  • Fallowfield, Lesley
  • Lewis, Shôn

Abstract

Studies which apply content analysis techniques to the cancer consultation are few. This descriptive study examines the structure and content of the bad news cancer consultations of 117 outpatients newly referred to the Medical Oncology Department of a large London teaching hospital. From previous communication research three main hypotheses are formed: (i) the cancer consultation is clinician-dominated rather than patient-centred; (ii) the level of psychosocial discussion between clinicians and patients is low and (iii) patient characteristics such as sex, age and prognostic category influence clinician behaviours. Each patient had two consultations with one of 5 oncologists. Both these were audiotaped with the patients' consent. The tapes were content coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Results showed that clinicians tended to use closed rather than open questions. Patients asked few questions and were seldom given space to initiate discussion. Thus, the level of patient-centredness was low. Despite the fact that consultations concerned life threatening disease and often contained information regarding toxic treatment which is known to provoke psychological dysfunction, the number of questions relating to patients' psychological health were few. The amount of discussion concerning medical topics from both parties was 2.5 times greater than the amount of psychosocial discussion. Although there was a suggestion in the data that 3 clinicians showed variations in behaviour according to patient age and prognostic group, the number of patients for each doctor was small. Patients were well informed about their diagnosis, prognosis and treatment options, but their emotional well-being was rarely probed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ford, Sarah & Fallowfield, Lesley & Lewis, Shôn, 1996. "Doctor-patient interactions in oncology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(11), pages 1511-1519, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:42:y:1996:i:11:p:1511-1519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00265-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yuxin Peng & Pingping Yin & Zhaohua Deng & Ruoxi Wang, 2019. "Patient–Physician Interaction and Trust in Online Health Community: The Role of Perceived Usefulness of Health Information and Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Gaston, Christine M. & Mitchell, Geoffrey, 2005. "Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 2252-2264, November.
    3. Beach, Wayne A. & Easter, David W. & Good, Jeffrey S. & Pigeron, Elisa, 2005. "Disclosing and responding to cancer "fears" during oncology interviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 893-910, February.
    4. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    5. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.
    6. Epstein, Ronald M. & Franks, Peter & Fiscella, Kevin & Shields, Cleveland G. & Meldrum, Sean C. & Kravitz, Richard L. & Duberstein, Paul R., 2005. "Measuring patient-centered communication in Patient-Physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1516-1528, October.
    7. Ishikawa, Hirono & Hashimoto, Hideki & Kiuchi, Takahiro, 2013. "The evolving concept of “patient-centeredness” in patient–physician communication research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 147-153.
    8. Zandbelt, Linda C. & Smets, Ellen M.A. & Oort, Frans J. & de Haes, Hanneke C.J.M., 2005. "Coding patient-centred behaviour in the medical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 661-671, August.
    9. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, 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:42:y:1996:i:11:p:1511-1519. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.