scholarly journals Communication in the Clinical Encounter: Dealing with the Disparities

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan Pirbhai
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Western Medicine ◽  
Life Experience ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Explanatory Models ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Subjective Response ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Model

Despite basing its foundation upon the ideals of Hippocrates, Western medicine, especially in the last century, has shifted from a holistic to a more reductionist approach to understanding and treating patients. These changes are primarily a result of widespread acceptance of the biomedical model in modern medicine. Consequently, there are now significant differences in physician and patient explanatory models for the same ailment. Cancer, for example, is interpreted as primarily a physiological process by the medical community, or more simply, as a disease. The patient, on the other hand, interprets cancer as an illness, a more subjective response, covering all aspects of the patient’s life experience, including emotional, psychological, social, and cultural realms, in addition to physiological aspects. These differences in explanatory models result in disparities between physicians and patients when it comes to defining the condition, managing the condition and even defining successful outcomes. These incongruencies must be addressed through effective communication in the clinical encounter, an aspect of patient care that has proven beneficial effects on patient health outcomes. The shared treatment decision-making model best addresses these communication problems. By providing a framework for both the physician and patient to negotiate their respective explanatory models en route to a mutually agreeable treatment decision, this model is a compromise between the two extremes of patient-physician models of communication: paternalism andinformed decision-making. Ultimately, the shared treatment decision-making model establishes a clinical relationship that is no longer characterized by an inabilityto effectively negotiate and consolidate differing values due to unbalanced informational and power dynamics in a social context. By incorporating this model of communication into medical practice, physicians and patients will better understand each other, bridging the disparities apparent in current practice and allow Western medicine to once again approximate the Hippocratic ideal.

Shared decision-making, decision aids, and the role of values in treatment decision-making

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amiram Gafni ◽  
Cathy Charles
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Conceptual Development ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Key Characteristics

Shared decision-making (SDM) between physicians and patients is often advocated as the ‘best’ approach to treatment decision-making in the clinical encounter. In this chapter we describe: (i) the key characteristics of a SDM approach; (ii) the clinical contexts for SDM; (iii) the definition and use of decision aids (DA), as well as their relationship to SDM; and (iv) the vexing problem of defining the meaning and role of values/preferences in treatment decision-making. Areas for further research and conceptual development are also suggested to help resolve outstanding issues in the above areas. Despite the widespread interest in promoting SDM, there does not seem to be as yet a universally accepted consensus on the meaning of this concept.

scholarly journals “Will It Affect Our Chances of Having Children?” and Feeling “Like a Ticking Bomb” —The Fertility Concerns and Fears of Cancer Progression and Recurrence in Cancer Treatment Decision-Making Among Young Women Diagnosed With Gynaecological or Breast Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Sobota ◽  
Gozde Ozakinci
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Progression ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Common Sense Model ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Model

Objective: Cancer treatment decision making process is particularly fraught with challenges for young women because the treatment can affect their reproductive potential. Among many factors affecting the process, fears of cancer progression and recurrence can also be important psychological factors. Our aim is to apply Common-Sense Model and shared decision-making model to explore experiences of treatment decision-making women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with gynaecological or breast cancer and the influence of fertility issues and fears of cancer progression and recurrence.Method: We conducted telephone interviews with 24 women who were diagnosed with gynaecological or breast cancer aged 18–45, who finished active treatment within 5 years prior to study enrolment and had no known evidence of cancer recurrence at the time of participation. They were recruited from three NHS oncology clinics in Scotland and online outlets of cancer charities and support organisations. We analysed the data using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method as it allows for both inductive and deductive analyses.Results: We identified five main themes pertaining to treatment-related decision-making experiences and fertility issues and fear of progression and recurrence: Becoming aware of infertility as a potential consequence of cancer treatment; Balancing-prioritising cancer and fertility; Decisions about treatments; Evaluation of treatment decisions; and The consequences of treatments. Sub-themes have also been reported. Different factors such as whether the cancer is breast or gynaecological, physicians' willingness of discussing fertility, influence of others in decision-making, childbearing and relationship status as well as fear of cancer recurrence emerged as important.Conclusion: The importance of physicians directly addressing fertility preservation in the process of treatment decision-making and not treating it as an “add-on” was evident. Satisfaction with treatment decisions depended on both the quality of the process of decision making and its outcome. Fear of recurrence was present in different parts of the adaptation process from illness perceptions to post-treatment evaluation of decisions. Both Common-Sense Model and shared decision-making model were helpful in understanding and explaining young women's experience of treatment decision-making and fertility concerns.

Treatment decision making in metastatic prostate cancer (mPC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 224-224
Author(s):  
Alicia K. Morgans ◽  
Angela Fought ◽  
Benjamin Lee ◽  
David James VanderWeele ◽  
Maha H. A. Hussain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Treatment Choice ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Relationship

224 Background: Multiple treatments exist for mPC, and optimal treatment choice is not defined. Shared decision making (SDM) in which physicians communicate treatment purpose, risks, and benefits, and patients (pts) communicate values/preferences can be used to determine treatment. SDM is associated with superior health outcomes in non-cancer populations, but whether it is used in mPC is unknown. We assessed mPC pt and caregiver perceptions of decision locus of control (DLOC) (SDM vs physician (PD) or pt (PtD) directed decisions), and characteristics associated with DLOC. Methods: Between 12/16 and 11/17, mPC patients and caregivers completed surveys of decision making practices after a clinical encounter in which a decision occurred. To evaluate the relationship between pt perception of DLOC type and categorical variables we used Fisher’s exact test, and Kruskal-Wallis was used to evaluate the relationship between DLOC and age. Results: 50 pt/caregivers participated, with median pt age of 72 yo. Most pts were Caucasian (96%), married (90%), and reported good health or better (18% excellent, 58% good, 24% fair). 66% of pts reported SDM, 10% reported PD only, 12% reported PD considering patient’s preferences, and 12% reported PtD considering physician’s recommendation. Caregivers reported numerically lower rates of SDM (56%), PD only (6%), and PD considering patient’s preferences (8%), but greater PtD considering physician’s recommendation (30%), (p=0.28). Neither reported PtD without considering physician recommendations. There was no association between pt DLCO and age (p=0.70) or clinician type, (p=0.13). All pts reporting PtD considering physician’s recommendation saw medical oncologists rather than urologists. Conclusions: Both pts and caregivers perceived a majority of decisions as SDM, indicating a high level of patient engagement in mPC decision making, and clinician type and patient age were not associated with pt reported DLOC. Pts seen by medical oncology in this cohort reported directing treatment choice when considering physician’s recommendation. Efforts to assess and support decision making in more diverse patient populations and explore the association between SDM, pt satisfaction and quality of life are underway.

Patients’ practices for taking the initiative in decision-making in outpatient psychiatric consultations

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuya Kushida ◽  
Takeshi Hiramoto ◽  
Yuriko Yamakawa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conversation Analysis ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Close Inspection ◽  
Important Resource ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
The Way

In spite of increasing advocacy for patients’ participation in psychiatric decision-making, there has been little research on how patients actually participate in decision-making in psychiatric consultations. This study explores how patients take the initiative in decision-making over treatment in outpatient psychiatric consultations in Japan. Using the methodology of conversation analysis, we analyze 85 video-recorded ongoing consultations and find that patients select between two practices for taking the initiative in decision-making: making explicit requests for a treatment and displaying interest in a treatment without explicitly requesting it. A close inspection of transcribed interaction reveals that patients make explicit requests under the circumstances where they believe the candidate treatment is appropriate for their condition, whereas they merely display interest in a treatment when they are not certain about its appropriateness. By fitting practices to take the initiative in decision-making with the way they describe their current condition, patients are optimally managing their desire for particular treatments and the validity of their initiative actions. In conclusion, we argue that the orderly use of the two practices is one important resource for patients’ participation in treatment decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document