IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v149y2016icp26-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance

Author

Listed:
  • Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby
  • Svennevig, Jan
  • Gulbrandsen, Pål

Abstract

Eliciting patients' values and treatment preferences is an essential element in models of shared decision making, yet few studies have investigated the interactional realizations of how physicians do this in authentic encounters. Drawing on video-recorded encounters from Norwegian secondary care, the present study uses the fine-grained empirical methodology of conversation analysis (CA) to identify one conversational practice physicians use, namely, formulations of patients' stance, in which physicians summarize or paraphrase their understanding of the patient's stance towards treatment. The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to explore what objectives formulations of patients' stance achieve while negotiating treatment and (2) to discuss these objectives in relation to core requirements in shared decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby & Svennevig, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Pål, 2016. "Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 26-36.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:149:y:2016:i:c:p:26-36
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953615302434
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.035?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. Samuel Eilon, 1969. "What is a Decision?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 172-189, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Hudak, Pamela L. & Clark, Shannon J. & Raymond, Geoffrey, 2011. "How surgeons design treatment recommendations in orthopaedic surgery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(7), pages 1028-1036.
    4. Koenig, Christopher J., 2011. "Patient resistance as agency in treatment decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1105-1114, April.
    5. Guadagnoli, Edward & Ward, Patricia, 1998. "Patient participation in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 329-339, August.
    6. Ariss, Steven M., 2009. "Asymmetrical knowledge claims in general practice consultations with frequently attending patients: Limitations and opportunities for patient participation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 908-919, September.
    7. Beach, W. A. & Dixson, C. N., 2001. "Revealing moments: formulating understandings of adverse experiences in a health appraisal interview," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 25-44, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bergen, Clara, 2020. "The conditional legitimacy of behavior change advice in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).

    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. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    3. 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.
    4. O' Donnell, Máire & Monz, Brigitta & Hunskaar, Steinar, 2007. "General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1914-1924, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Stewart, Simon John & Roberts, Lisa & Brindle, Lucy, 2023. "Shared decision-making during prostate cancer consultations: Implications of clinician misalignment with patient and partner preferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 329(C).
    7. Thompson, Andrew G.H., 2007. "The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1297-1310, March.
    8. Chappell, Paul & Toerien, Merran & Jackson, Clare & Reuber, Markus, 2018. "Following the patient's orders? Recommending vs. offering choice in neurology outpatient consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 8-16.
    9. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    10. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    11. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    14. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    15. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    18. 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.
    19. John Henneberry & Claire Roberts, 2008. "Calculated Inequality? Portfolio Benchmarking and Regional Office Property Investment in the UK," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(5-6), pages 1217-1241, May.
    20. Yoko Ueno & Mayumi Kako & Mitsuko Ohira & Hitoshi Okamura, 2020. "Shared decision‐making for women facing an unplanned pregnancy: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1186-1196, December.

    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:149:y:2016:i:c:p:26-36. 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.