IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i1p2158244020903423.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outsiders in the Experts’ World: A Grounded Theory Study of Consumers and the Social World of Health Care

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun
  • Kim Usher
  • Jane Mills

Abstract

This article presents findings from a grounded theory study, which investigated interactions between health professionals and consumers. The authors used Corbin and Strauss’s evolved version of grounded theory, which is underpinned by symbolic interactionism. The study sample included 23 consumers and nine health professionals. Data collection methods included demographic questionnaires, interviews, consumer diaries, digital storytelling, observations, and field notes. Data analysis was conducted using essential grounded theory methods. The resultant grounded theory consists of five categories: (a) Unexpected entrance, (b) Learning a new role, (c) Establishing a presence, (d) Confronting the dichotomy of “us and them,†and (e) Tailored care. Findings suggest that despite consumers and health professionals’ roles, consumers are outsiders in the social world of health care. Progress toward empowered consumers who are in control of their health and health care is slow and care that is truly consumer-centered is still the exception not the rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun & Kim Usher & Jane Mills, 2020. "Outsiders in the Experts’ World: A Grounded Theory Study of Consumers and the Social World of Health Care," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:2158244020903423
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244020903423
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020903423
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244020903423?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
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    3. Annesofie L Jensen & Tina W Vedelø & Kirsten Lomborg, 2013. "A patient‐centred approach to assisted personal body care for patients hospitalised with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(7-8), pages 1005-1015, April.
    4. Aakrati Mathur & E. Robert Orellana & Amy Frohnmayer & Pauline Jivanjee & Lillian Nail & Brandon Hayes-Lattin & Rebecca G. Block, 2013. "Patients’ Perception of Patient–Provider Communication in Fertility Preservation Decision Making Among Young Women With Cancer," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(3), pages 21582440135, September.
    5. Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun & Jane Mills & Kim Usher, 2013. "Linking Symbolic Interactionism and Grounded Theory Methods in a Research Design," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(3), pages 21582440135, September.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Murdoch, Jamie & Salter, Charlotte & Ford, John & Lenaghan, Elizabeth & Shiner, Alice & Steel, Nicholas, 2020. "The “unknown territory” of goal-setting: Negotiating a novel interactional activity within primary care doctor-patient consultations for patients with multiple chronic conditions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    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. Mitchell, Ellen M.H. & Kwizera, Amata & Usta, Momade & Gebreselassie, Hailemichael, 2010. "Choosing early pregnancy termination methods in Urban Mozambique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 62-70, July.
    12. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    17. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    18. 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.
    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:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:1:p:2158244020903423. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.