scholarly journals Implicit persuasion in medical decision-making

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-227
Author(s):  
Ellen G. Engelhardt ◽  
Arwen H. Pieterse ◽  
Anne M. Stiggelbout

Abstract If the arguments to support a recommendation are partly implicit, the free exchange of ideas between discussants can be hampered. In this paper, we will focus on the potential pitfall for clinicians when informing patients about treatment options: implicit persuasion. We will describe a set of implicitly persuasive behaviors observed during decision-making consultations, and reflect on how these behaviors could undermine efforts to stimulate patient participation in decision-making. We will also reflect on possible explanations for why clinicians exhibit such behaviors.

2001 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carita Sainio ◽  
Sirkka Lauri ◽  
Elina Eriksson

The purpose of this study was to explore the views and experiences of adult cancer patients about patient participation in care and decision making and the preconditions for this participation. The data were collected by means of focused interviews; in addition the patients completed depression and problem-solving instruments. The sample comprised 34 cancer patients from the haematological and oncological wards of one university hospital in Finland. The results revealed considerable variation in the patients’ views on their participation in care and decision making. Some of the patients understood participation either in terms of contributing to the decision making or in terms of expressing their views on treatment options. Some considered that their participation in care was impossible. Patient participation in care and decision making was promoted by good health, access to information, assertiveness, good interactive relationships with nurses and physicians, and encouragement by nurses and physicians to participate. Factors restricting such patient participation were poor health, ignorance, anxiety, age, time pressures of staff, lack of time, high staff turnover and poor interactive relationships. With regard to participation in medical decision making, the patients were divided into three groups: (1) active participants ( n = 7), (2) patients giving active consent ( n = 9), and (3) patients giving passive consent to medical decisions ( n = 18).


2016 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 39-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Bär Deucher ◽  
MP Hengartner ◽  
W. Kawohl ◽  
J. Konrad ◽  
B. Puschner ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundThe purpose of this paper was to examine national differences in the desire to participate in decision-making of people with severe mental illness in six European countries.MethodsThe data was taken from a European longitudinal observational study (CEDAR; ISRCTN75841675). A sample of 514 patients with severe mental illness from the study centers in Ulm, Germany, London, England, Naples, Italy, Debrecen, Hungary, Aalborg, Denmark and Zurich, Switzerland were assessed as to desire to participate in medical decision-making. Associations between desire for participation in decision-making and center location were analyzed with generalized estimating equations.ResultsWe found large cross-national differences in patients’ desire to participate in decision-making, with the center explaining 47.2% of total variance in the desire for participation (P < 0.001). Averaged over time and independent of patient characteristics, London (mean = 2.27), Ulm (mean = 2.13) and Zurich (mean = 2.14) showed significantly higher scores in desire for participation, followed by Aalborg (mean = 1.97), where scores were in turn significantly higher than in Debrecen (mean = 1.56). The lowest scores were reported in Naples (mean = 1.14). Over time, the desire for participation in decision-making increased significantly in Zurich (b = 0.23) and decreased in Naples (b = −0.14). In all other centers, values remained stable.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that patients’ desire for participation in decision-making varies by location. We suggest that more research attention be focused on identifying specific cultural and social factors in each country to further explain observed differences across Europe.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 684-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Ernst ◽  
S. Berger ◽  
G. Weißflog ◽  
C. Schröder ◽  
A. Körner ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Erica S Spatz ◽  
Daniel D Matlock ◽  
Yan Li ◽  
John A Spertus ◽  
Harlan M Krumholz

Background: Patients vary in their desire to participate in medical decision-making (MDM), with some preferring passive roles and others preferring shared or autonomous roles. Yet little is known about the stability of patient preferences over time and whether patient preferences are aligned with how they actually experience the MDM process. We sought to determine the stability of MDM preferences for patients hospitalized with an AMI and assess whether there is concordance between the patient’s preference and their experience with care. Methods: In TRIUMPH, a 24-center, prospective US study of AMI patients, MDM preferences were assessed both at the time of hospitalization and one year later (n=2071). MDM preferences were assessed by the question, “Given the information about the risks and benefits of the treatment options, who should decide which treatment option should be selected? We categorized responses from a 5-item Likert scale into: passive (“doctor alone/mostly the doctor”), or shared/active (“doctor and you equally/mostly you or you alone”) and compared responses between baseline and 12-months following AMI. We assessed concordance between baseline MDM preferences with the patients’ perceived level of participation in MDM at 1 month with the question, “Who was responsible for making health decisions regarding the current treatment of your heart condition?” using the same 5-item Likert scale and categorization. Results: Over 2/3 of patients preferred shared/active MDM both at the time of their AMI (1446, 69.8%) and 1 year later (1411, 68.1%). However, individual preferences varied over time. Among patients with a baseline preference for shared/active MDM, 374 (25.9%) preferred passive participation 1 year later. Among patients preferring passive participation at the time of their AMI, 339 (54.2%) preferred a shared/active participatory role 1 year later. Comparing desired and perceived roles in MDM, only 54.5% of patients reported, at 1 month, an MDM process that was concordant with their baseline preferences. Among patients with a baseline preference for shared/active MDM, 48.3% reported experiencing a passive role in MDM 1 month following AMI. Among patients preferring a passive role at baseline, 39.3% reported experiencing a shared/active MDM process. Conclusion: Individual preferences for participation in MDM during and after AMI vary, with the majority preferring a shared/active role. These preferences change over time, highlighting the need for continual assessment. In the month following an AMI, half of patients experienced an MDM process that was not consistent with their stated preferences.


1992 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 377-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne B. Yellen ◽  
Laurel A. Burton ◽  
Ellen Elpern

Historically, patients have deferred to physicians′ judgments about appropriate medical care, thereby limiting patient participation in treatment decisions. In this model of medical decision making, physicians typically decided upon the treatment plan. Communication with patients focused on securing their cooperation in accepting a treatment decision that essentially had already been made.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document