IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v205y2018icp48-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Diamond-Brown, Lauren

Abstract

This paper examines obstetricians' perceptions of standards of care and patient-centered care in clinical decision-making in childbirth. Patient-centered care and standardization of medicine are two social movements that seek to change how physicians make clinical decisions. Sociologists question if these limit physician discretion and weaken their social power; the degree to which this occurs in everyday practice is up for debate. Of additional concern is how physicians deal with observed tensions between these ideals. These questions are answered through in-depth interviews with 50 self-selected obstetricians from Massachusetts, Louisiana, and Vermont collected between 2013 and 2015. Interview data was analyzed using a grounded theory and template approach. The author problematizes obstetricians' attitudes about standards of care and shared decision-making, mechanisms that encourage or discourage these approaches to decision-making, and how obstetricians negotiate tensions between patient choice, clinical experience, and standards. The key findings are that most obstetricians feel they have the authority to interpret the appropriateness of standards and patient choice on a case-by-case basis. They feel empowered and/or constrained by pressures to practice patient-centered care and standards depending upon their style of practice and the organizational context. Following standards of care is encouraged through organizational mechanisms such as pressure from colleagues, malpractice threat, hospital policy, and payer restrictions. Practicing shared decision-making is challenged when the patient wants something that violates the physician's clinical experience and/or standards of care. When obstetricians prioritize patient choice over experience and/or standards this is done for moral reasons, less so because of organizational pressures. These findings have implications for theorizing the social status of medical professionals, understanding how physicians deal with tensions between standardized and individualized ideals in medicine, and illuminating the way obstetricians interpret power in the physician-patient relationship.

Suggested Citation

  • Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2018. "“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 48-54.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:205:y:2018:i:c:p:48-54
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618301618
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.002?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. Berg, Marc, 1997. "Problems and promises of the protocol," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1081-1088, April.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Armstrong, David, 2002. "Clinical autonomy, individual and collective: the problem of changing doctors' behaviour," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(10), pages 1771-1777, November.
    7. Mykhalovskiy, Eric & Weir, Lorna, 2004. "The problem of evidence-based medicine: directions for social science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 1059-1069, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Gwyn, Richard & Elwyn, Glyn, 1999. "When is a shared decision not (quite) a shared decision? Negotiating preferences in a general practice encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 437-447, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Lambert, Helen & Gordon, Elisa J. & Bogdan-Lovis, Elizabeth A., 2006. "Introduction: Gift horse or Trojan horse? Social science perspectives on evidence-based health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2613-2620, June.
    12. Kasey Buckles & Melanie Guldi, 2017. "Worth the Wait? The Effect of Early Term Birth on Maternal and Infant Health," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 748-772, September.
    13. Lambert, Helen, 2006. "Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2633-2645, June.
    14. Dubbin, Leslie A. & Chang, Jamie Suki & Shim, Janet K., 2013. "Cultural health capital and the interactional dynamics of patient-centered care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 113-120.
    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. Gallan, Andrew S. & Helkkula, Anu & McConnell, William R., 2024. "Why did this happen to me? Causal attributions of illness and cultural health capital," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).
    2. Kroll, Camille & Murphy, Julia & Poston, Lindsay & You, Whitney & Premkumar, Ashish, 2022. "Cultivating the ideal obstetrical patient: How physicians-in-training describe pain associated with childbirth," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    3. Ihlebæk, Hanna Marie, 2021. "Time to care - An ethnographic study of how temporal structuring affects caring relationships in clinical nursing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 287(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. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2016. "The doctor-patient relationship as a toolkit for uncertain clinical decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 108-115.
    2. Perrotta, Manuela & Geampana, Alina, 2020. "The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Timmermans, Stefan & Almeling, Rene, 2009. "Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 21-27, July.
    5. May, Carl & Rapley, Tim & Moreira, Tiago & Finch, Tracy & Heaven, Ben, 2006. "Technogovernance: Evidence, subjectivity, and the clinical encounter in primary care medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 1022-1030, February.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Mykhalovskiy, Eric & Armstrong, Pat & Armstrong, Hugh & Bourgeault, Ivy & Choiniere, Jackie & Lexchin, Joel & Peters, Suzanne & White, Jerry, 2008. "Qualitative research and the politics of knowledge in an age of evidence: Developing a research-based practice of immanent critique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 195-203, July.
    10. Baeza, Juan I. & Boaz, Annette & Fraser, Alec, 2016. "The roles of specialisation and evidence-based practice in inter-professional jurisdictions: A qualitative study of stroke services in England, Sweden and Poland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 15-23.
    11. Smith, Sian K. & Dixon, Ann & Trevena, Lyndal & Nutbeam, Don & McCaffery, Kirsten J., 2009. "Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1805-1812, December.
    12. Collins, Dorothy L. & Street Jr., Richard L., 2009. "A dialogic model of conversations about risk: Coordinating perceptions and achieving quality decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1506-1512, April.
    13. Dan Wang & Chenxi Liu & Xinping Zhang, 2020. "Do Physicians’ Attitudes towards Patient-Centered Communication Promote Physicians’ Intention and Behavior of Involving Patients in Medical Decisions?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-11, September.
    14. Clinch, Megan & Benson, John, 2013. "Making information ‘relevant’: General Practitioner judgments and the production of patient involvement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 104-111.
    15. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    19. Manzer, Jamie L. & Bell, Ann V., 2022. "The limitations of patient-centered care: The case of early long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    20. 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.

    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:205:y:2018:i:c:p:48-54. 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.