IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i9-10p1430-1444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient participation, decision‐makers and information flow in surgical treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Liv‐Helen Heggland
  • Kjell Hausken

Abstract

Aims and objectives To clarify patient participation by specifying three kinds of information flows between healthcare professionals and patients in four models such as the paternalistic, shared, informed and nonpaternalistic models. Background The relationship between healthcare professionals and patients has evolved from a traditional paternalistic model where ‘doctors know best' and patients are passive recipients, to a partnership where patients act as active participants. Design A qualitative study. Methods Qualitative data from interviews with four doctors, seven nurses and seven patients illustrate these relationships. Results A 3 × 3 matrix is developed where healthcare professionals can make decisions unilaterally, patients can make decisions unilaterally, or these can make decisions jointly. Information can flow from healthcare professionals to patient, from patient to healthcare professionals or both ways. Conclusions This conceptualisation provides a rich understanding of decision‐making and information flow in surgical hospitals. Relevance to clinical practice The paper illustrates how practice can be assessed empirically to determine how it fits into the structure. Strategies can be implemented to move practice from one part of the structure to another part.

Suggested Citation

  • Liv‐Helen Heggland & Kjell Hausken, 2014. "Patient participation, decision‐makers and information flow in surgical treatment," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(9-10), pages 1430-1444, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:9-10:p:1430-1444
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12395
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12395?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. 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.
    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. Scott, Anthony & Vick, Sandra, 1999. "Patients, Doctors and Contracts: An Application of Principal-Agent Theory to the Doctor-Patient Relationship," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 46(2), pages 111-134, May.
    4. Anthony Scott & Sandra Vick, 1999. "Patients, Doctors and Contracts: An Application of Principal‐Agent Theory to the Doctor‐Patient Relationship," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 46(2), pages 111-134, May.
    5. Gaston, Christine M. & Mitchell, Geoffrey, 2005. "Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 2252-2264, November.
    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. Liv‐Helen Heggland & Aslaug Mikkelsen & Kjell Hausken, 2013. "Models, phases and cases of patient participation in decision‐making in surgical treatment in Norway: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 39-44, March.
    2. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Katrin Auspurg & Annette Jäckle, 2017. "First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette-Based Measurement," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 490-539, August.
    4. Godager, Geir, 2012. "Birds of a feather flock together: A study of doctor–patient matching," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 296-305.
    5. Udo Schneider, 2002. "Beidseitige Informationsasymmetrien in der Arzt-Patient-Beziehung: Implikationen für die GKV," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 71(4), pages 447-458.
    6. Megha Swami & Hugh Gravelle & Anthony Scott & Jenny Williams, 2018. "Hours worked by general practitioners and waiting times for primary care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1513-1532, October.
    7. David J John O Regan, 2017. "Trust Me I’M A Doctor…. Working towards a Healthy Prescriptive Consent According to Decision Theory," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 1(4), pages 1184-1190, September.
    8. Riise, Julie & Hole, Arne Risa & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Skåtun, Diane, 2016. "GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices – evidence from three national health services," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 169-183.
    9. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    10. Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien & Frouke Hermens, 2018. "The eyes have it: Using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi‐attributes choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 709-721, April.
    11. Propper, Carol & Croxson, Bronwyn & Shearer, Arran, 2002. "Waiting times for hospital admissions: the impact of GP fundholding," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 227-252, March.
    12. Parvaneh Shahnoori & Glenn P. Jenkins, 2019. "Valuation of the Quality Attributes of Online Banking Services by Small and Medium Enterprises Engaged in International Trade," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 87(1), pages 65-81, March.
    13. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Kevin Boyle & Semra Özdemir, 2009. "Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 247-264, February.
    16. Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Kristian Hart‐Hansen, 2006. "Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1217-1228, November.
    17. Joanna Coast, 2001. "Citizens, their agents and health care rationing: an exploratory study using qualitative methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 159-174, March.
    18. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2006. "A New Role For Consumers’ Preferences In The Provision Of Healthcare," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 4-9, September.
    19. M. Paula Fitzgerald & Farnoush Reshadi & Matthew Sarkees, 2022. "Patient susceptibility to over‐trust: The case of off‐label prescribing," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 849-875, June.
    20. Rita Santos & Hugh Gravelle & Carol Propper, 2013. "Does quality affect patients’ choice of doctor? Evidence from the UK," Working Papers 088cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:9-10:p:1430-1444. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.