IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v8y2014i3p350-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What motivates adherence to medical recommendations? The procedural justice approach to gaining deference in the medical arena

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Tyler
  • Avital Mentovich
  • Sagarika Satyavada

Abstract

Although it is within their long‐term interest, patients often fail to follow health care recommendations made by medical experts. This failure results in the widespread occurrence of preventable health problems and a significant increase in health care costs. Taking a new approach to confronting this issue, this paper examines whether the procedural justice model, which has been useful in explaining cooperation with legal and managerial authorities, can provide a basis for increasing patients' willingness to voluntarily adhere to health care recommendations. Three studies tested and supported this proposition. Study 1 experimentally manipulated physicians' procedural fairness or unfairness to explore its influence on patients' acceptance of doctors' recommendations. Study 2 used patients' reports about the fairness of their personal physicians and linked those evaluations to their willingness to follow their doctor's recommendations. Finally, study 3 explored the role of general procedural justice judgments in promoting willingness to accept health policies when they are advocated by private doctors and government health care authorities. The results of all three studies support the argument that when health care authorities use fair procedures, patients are more likely to accept their recommendations. Importantly, this procedural justice effect is distinct from, and in some cases stronger than, the influence of competence.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Tyler & Avital Mentovich & Sagarika Satyavada, 2014. "What motivates adherence to medical recommendations? The procedural justice approach to gaining deference in the medical arena," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 350-370, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:350-370
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12043
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12043?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. Gibson, Jennifer L. & Martin, Douglas K. & Singer, Peter A., 2005. "Priority setting in hospitals: Fairness, inclusiveness, and the problem of institutional power differences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 2355-2362, December.
    2. Milewa, Timothy, 2008. "Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 356-362, March.
    3. Ong, L. M. L. & de Haes, J. C. J. M. & Hoos, A. M. & Lammes, F. B., 1995. "Doctor-patient communication: A review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 903-918, April.
    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. Yael Cohen‐Rimer, 2023. "Participation in welfare legislation—A poverty‐aware paradigm," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 83-102, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Beach, Wayne A. & Easter, David W. & Good, Jeffrey S. & Pigeron, Elisa, 2005. "Disclosing and responding to cancer "fears" during oncology interviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 893-910, February.
    3. Gallagher, Siun & Little, Miles, 2019. "Procedural justice and the individual participant in priority setting: Doctors' experiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 75-84.
    4. Blume, Andreas, 2018. "Failure of common knowledge of language in common-interest communication games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 132-155.
    5. Rhona Hogg & Janet Hanley & Pam Smith, 2018. "Learning lessons from the analysis of patient complaints relating to staff attitudes, behaviour and communication, using the concept of emotional labour," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 1004-1012, March.
    6. Dale, Elina & Peacocke, Elizabeth F. & Movik, Espen & Voorhoeve, Alex & Ottersen, Trygve & Kurowski, Christoph & Evans, David B. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof & Gopinathan, Unni, 2023. "Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119799, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. 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.
    8. Roscigno, Cecelia I. & Savage, Teresa A. & Grant, Gerald & Philipsen, Gerry, 2013. "How healthcare provider talk with parents of children following severe traumatic brain injury is perceived in early acute care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 32-39.
    9. Kapiriri, Lydia & Norheim, Ole F. & Martin, Douglas K., 2009. "Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 766-773, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Pratt, Bridget & Merritt, Maria & Hyder, Adnan A., 2016. "Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 215-224.
    12. Mélanie Sustersic & Aurélie Gauchet & Anaïs Kernou & Charlotte Gibert & Alison Foote & Céline Vermorel & Jean-Luc Bosson, 2018. "A scale assessing doctor-patient communication in a context of acute conditions based on a systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    13. Archontissa Maria Kanavaki & Courtney Jane Lightfoot & Jared Palmer & Thomas James Wilkinson & Alice Caroline Smith & Ceri Rhiannon Jones, 2021. "Kidney Care during COVID-19 in the UK: Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals on Impacts on Care Quality and Staff Well-Being," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    15. Chandwani, Rajesh & Sharma, Dheeraj, 2015. "Managing Emotions: Emotional Labor or Emotional Enrichment," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-03-42, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    16. Brunton, Margaret & Jordan, Claire & Fouche, Christa, 2008. "Managing public health care policy: Who's being forgotten?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 348-358, December.
    17. Gibson, Mark & Neil Jenkings, K. & Wilson, Rob & Purves, Ian, 2006. "Verbal prescribing in general practice consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1684-1698, September.
    18. Charlotte T. Lee & Susanne Phillips & Susan Tiso & Camille Fitzpatrick, 2019. "Exploring Interpersonal Relationships in a Nurse-Managed Clinic and Their Impact on Clinical Outcomes," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, July.
    19. Vrana, Scott R. & Vrana, Dylan T. & Penner, Louis A. & Eggly, Susan & Slatcher, Richard B. & Hagiwara, Nao, 2018. "Latent Semantic Analysis: A new measure of patient-physician communication," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 22-26.
    20. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.

    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:reggov:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:350-370. 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)1748-5991 .

    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.