Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective

Contents:

Author Info

  • Greenfield, Geva
  • Pliskin, Joseph S.
  • Feder-Bubis, Paula
  • Wientroub, Shlomo
  • Davidovitch, Nadav
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Theories on the patient–physician relationship have evolved within the last decades to portray a nuanced picture of the traditional patient–physician “dyad”. Shifts in social, economic, and technological contexts in which the physician–patient encounters are taking place raised the need for more complex frameworks to study patient–physician encounters. One example of a change to this dyad is the increasing use of second opinions. The second opinion is a ratification tool that critically influences diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. There are scarce data on the patient–physician relationship in second opinions, specifically from the physician’s perspective. We studied the physicians’ attitudes toward second opinion encounters. We interviewed 35 orthopedic surgeons and neurologists in Israel, and performed a qualitative analysis of the data using the Grounded Theory approach. The findings exemplify how physicians struggle between their perceived professional image and their vulnerability, as they are sometimes disappointed, offended, embarrassed and resent their patients, and how they strive to preserve their professional authority and autonomy through allegedly ‘paternalistic’ behavior. The physicians portrayed their patients as striving to conceal the two physicians from each other, creating two dyads that rarely develop into a triad. Along the asymmetry inherent to the patient–physician relationship, we found that physicians and assumedly their patients share symmetric motives and behaviors. We identify two continuums that physicians, and apparently their patients, experience between their different sources of power (whether professional or consumerist), creating a covert conflict over power and control, and between loyalty and autonomy. Finally, we suggested a humanistic approach to understanding physician and patient behavior, based on mutual recognition of needs. Physicians and patients can benefit from communicating openly, positively and respectfully in second opinion encounters. Perceiving the second opinion as a legitimate and empowering tool, that strengthens and widens the patient–physician relationship, instead of weakening it, may result in greater satisfaction on both sides, both for the clinical decision and for a healthy patient–physician relationship.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612004546
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 75 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 7 ()
    Pages: 1202-1212

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:7:p:1202-1212

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description

    Order Information:
    Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

    Related research

    Keywords: Second opinion; Patient–physician relationship; Trust; Loyalty; Professionalism; Control; Israel; Physicians;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Mead, Nicola & Bower, Peter & Hann, Mark, 2002. "The impact of general practitioners' patient-centredness on patients' post-consultation satisfaction and enablement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 283-299, July.
    2. Pilnick, Alison & Dingwall, Robert, 2011. "On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1374-1382, April.
    3. Potter, Sharyn J. & McKinlay, John B., 2005. "From a relationship to encounter: an examination of longitudinal and lateral dimensions in the doctor-patient relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 465-479, July.
    4. Mead, Nicola & Bower, Peter, 2000. "Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(7), pages 1087-1110, October.
    5. Street Jr., Richard L. & Gordon, Howard & Haidet, Paul, 2007. "Physicians' communication and perceptions of patients: Is it how they look, how they talk, or is it just the doctor?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 586-598, August.
    6. Fox, N.J. & Ward, K.J. & O'Rourke, A.J., 2005. "The 'expert patient': empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1299-1309, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Lupton, Deborah, 1997. "Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 373-381, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:7:p:1202-1212. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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