IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i7p1202-1212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Greenfield, Geva
  • Pliskin, Joseph S.
  • Feder-Bubis, Paula
  • Wientroub, Shlomo
  • Davidovitch, Nadav

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:7:p:1202-1212
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    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 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. 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. 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.
    4. Lupton, Deborah, 1997. "Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 373-381, August.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Philippe Robert-Demontrond & R. Ringoot, 2004. "Introduction," Post-Print halshs-00081823, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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: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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.