IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/nuhsci/v15y2013i1p39-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Models, phases and cases of patient participation in decision‐making in surgical treatment in Norway: A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Liv‐Helen Heggland
  • Aslaug Mikkelsen
  • Kjell Hausken

Abstract

This study improves our understanding of patients' participation in hospital treatment‐decision processes. We explored the degree of patient participation perceived by both patients and healthcare professionals in four phases of the decision process: information dissemination, formulation of options, integration of information, and control within four models of interactions between healthcare professionals and patients: the paternalistic model, the shared model, the informed model, and the non‐paternalistic model. The analysis was based on 18 in‐depth, exploratory interviews with patients and healthcare professionals in six surgical units in Norway. Knowledge about how patients and healthcare professionals interact in the surgical‐decision process is important for developing systems and arenas for patient participation in practice, and for a climate and culture to further support the implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:15:y:2013:i:1:p:39-44
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2012.00716.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2012.00716.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2012.00716.x?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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Marja Härkänen & Marjo Kervinen & Jouni Ahonen & Hannele Turunen & Katri Vehviläinen‐Julkunen, 2015. "An observational study of how patients are identified before medication administrations in medical and surgical wards," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 188-194, June.

    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 & 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.
    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. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Debby van Helvoort‐Postulart & Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Trudy van der Weijden & Maarten F. von Meyenfeldt & Carmen D. Dirksen, 2009. "Discrete choice experiments for complex health‐care decisions: does hierarchical information integration offer a solution?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 903-920, August.

    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:nuhsci:v:15:y:2013:i:1:p:39-44. 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)1442-2018 .

    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.