IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v247y2020ics0277953620300162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking decision-making in the context of preventive medication: How taking statins becomes “the right thing to do”

Author

Listed:
  • Polak, Louisa
  • Green, Judith

Abstract

To understand decision-making in the context of longterm preventive medication, we explore the way “deciding” articulates with household medication practices and other everyday routines. Taking statins as a case study, we use qualitative data from interviews with 34 participants in the UK who had all been offered statins; 19 were currently taking them. Although all participants reference similar information about statins, the way they assemble and use their knowledge varies: there is a marked asymmetry between participants taking statins and those not taking them. Deliberation is a prominent feature of accounts of deciding not to take statins, but seldom visible within accounts of those taking them. Statin-takers emphasise that they have “no choice” about taking them, while non-takers stress the need to “think about it”; statin-takers’ accounts prioritise biomedical tests over experiential knowledge, whereas non-takers sometimes prioritise experiential knowledge. All participants reference similar theoretical and experiential knowledge about side-effects, but whereas non-takers often use this knowledge to explain their decision to decline statins, those taking statins downplay both their own experiences and the likelihood that these are due to statins. To account for these asymmetries, we propose a model of decision-making in which deciding upon a course of action entails constructing a narrative presentation of medication use that frames it as “the right thing to do”. This model helps us examine the two-way interactions between decision-making and the material practices through which regular medication gets taken, interactions often elided from accounts both of decision-making and of medication practice. In the context of longterm medication, the boundaries between “deciding” and “doing” are blurred; decision-making is situated within a web of collaborative, discursively-informed practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Polak, Louisa & Green, Judith, 2020. "Rethinking decision-making in the context of preventive medication: How taking statins becomes “the right thing to do”," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:247:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620300162
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112797
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620300162
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112797?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. 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.
    2. Stevenson, Fiona A. & Barry, Christine A. & Britten, Nicky & Barber, Nick & Bradley, Colin P., 2000. "Doctor-patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(6), pages 829-840, March.
    3. Pound, Pandora & Britten, Nicky & Morgan, Myfanwy & Yardley, Lucy & Pope, Catherine & Daker-White, Gavin & Campbell, Rona, 2005. "Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 133-155, July.
    4. Dew, Kevin & Norris, Pauline & Gabe, Jonathan & Chamberlain, Kerry & Hodgetts, Darrin, 2015. "Moral discourses and pharmaceuticalised governance in households," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 272-279.
    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. Goldsmith, Laurie J. & Kolhatkar, Ashra & Popowich, Dominic & Holbrook, Anne M. & Morgan, Steven G. & Law, Michael R., 2017. "Understanding the patient experience of cost-related non-adherence to prescription medications through typology development and application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 51-59.
    2. Pickard, Susan & Sheaff, Rod & Dowling, Bernard, 2006. "Exit, voice, governance and user-responsiveness: The case of English primary care trusts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 373-383, July.
    3. Malpass, Alice & Shaw, Alison & Sharp, Debbie & Walter, Fiona & Feder, Gene & Ridd, Matthew & Kessler, David, 2009. ""Medication career" or "Moral career"? The two sides of managing antidepressants: A meta-ethnography of patients' experience of antidepressants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 154-168, January.
    4. Solomon, Josie & Knapp, Peter & Raynor, D.K. & Atkin, Karl, 2013. "Worlds apart? An exploration of prescribing and medicine-taking decisions by patients, GPs and local policy makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 264-272.
    5. Armstrong, David, 2023. "The social life of risk probabilities in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    6. Webster, Michelle, 2017. "Similarities and differences in the meanings children and their parents attach to epilepsy medications," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 190-197.
    7. Rachel A. Crockett & Stephen Sutton & Fiona M. Walter & Megan Clinch & Theresa M. Marteau & John Benson, 2011. "Impact on Decisions to Start or Continue Medicines of Providing Information to Patients about Possible Benefits and/or Harms," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 767-777, September.
    8. E.A.G. Joosten & G.H. De Weert-Van Oene & T. Sensky & C.P.F. Van Der Staak & C.A.J. De Jong, 2011. "Treatment Goals in Addiction Healthcare: the Perspectives of Patients and Clinicians," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 57(3), pages 263-276, May.
    9. Nora Moumjid & Amiram Gafni & Alain Brémond & Marie-Odile Carrère, 2007. "Shared Decision Making in the Medical Encounter: Are We All Talking about the Same Thing?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 539-546, September.
    10. Flynn, Kathryn E. & Smith, Maureen A. & Vanness, David, 2006. "A typology of preferences for participation in healthcare decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1158-1169, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Allison Williams & Jac Kee Low & Elizabeth Manias & Kimberley Crawford, 2016. "The transplant team's support of kidney transplant recipients to take their prescribed medications: a collective responsibility," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(15-16), pages 2251-2261, August.
    14. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Rebecca J Bartlett Ellis & Janet L Welch, 2017. "Medication‐taking behaviours in chronic kidney disease with multiple chronic conditions: a meta‐ethnographic synthesis of qualitative studies," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5-6), pages 586-598, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    20. 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.

    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:247:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620300162. 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.