IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v220y2019icp212-218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting ‘awareness contexts’ in the 21st century hospital: How fragmented and specialized care shape patients' Awareness of Dying

Author

Listed:
  • Stacey, Clare L.
  • Pai, Manacy
  • Novisky, Meghan A.
  • Radwany, Steven M.

Abstract

In 1965, Glaser and Strauss (1965) offered the concept of “awareness contexts” to explain what patients in hospitals do or don't know about their death trajectories. Awareness ranges from closed (where patients are completely unaware and family and providers protect “the secret”) to open (where all parties communicate openly and honestly). While closed awareness was the norm in 1960s, open awareness is now considered standard practice in US, a reflection of mounting evidence that patients, families, and providers benefit from clear and honest communication at end of life (Seale et al., 1997; Wright et al., 2008). Despite the known benefits of open awareness, many terminal patients remain unaware or confused about their prognoses (Chen et al., 2017). This paper asks why, in an era of open awareness, are patients and families uncertain about dying? To answer this question, we focus on an aspect of Glaser and Strauss's theory that remains relatively understudied by researchers, namely the role of institutional and organizational realities in shaping awareness contexts. Based on interviews with 43 family members of deceased patients who died at General Hospital in the Midwestern US, we argue that two related conditions in hospitals—the increased specialization of medical professionals and the fragmentation of patient care—serve as important context for the death awareness of patients and families.

Suggested Citation

  • Stacey, Clare L. & Pai, Manacy & Novisky, Meghan A. & Radwany, Steven M., 2019. "Revisiting ‘awareness contexts’ in the 21st century hospital: How fragmented and specialized care shape patients' Awareness of Dying," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 212-218.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:220:y:2019:i:c:p:212-218
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.10.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618306245
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.10.028?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McPherson, C. J. & Addington-Hall, J. M., 2003. "Judging the quality of care at the end of life: can proxies provide reliable information?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 95-109, January.
    2. Seale, Clive & Addington-Hall, Julia & McCarthy, Mark, 1997. "Awareness of dying: Prevalence, causes and consequences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 477-484, August.
    3. Philip C Higgins & Holly G Prigerson, 2013. "Caregiver Evaluation of the Quality of End-Of-Life Care (CEQUEL) Scale: The Caregiver's Perception of Patient Care Near Death," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-10, June.
    4. Miyaji, Naoko T., 1993. "The power of compassion: Truth-telling among American doctors in the care of dying patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 249-264, February.
    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. Lang, Alexander & Frankus, Elisabeth & Heimerl, Katharina, 2022. "The perspective of professional caregivers working in generalist palliative care on ‘good dying’: An integrative review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).

    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. Chabot, Boudewijn E. & Goedhart, Arnold, 2009. "A survey of self-directed dying attended by proxies in the Dutch population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1745-1751, May.
    2. Thomas, Carol, 2005. "The place of death of cancer patients: can qualitative data add to known factors?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 2597-2607, June.
    3. van Wijngaarden, Els & Leget, Carlo & Goossensen, Anne, 2015. "Ready to give up on life: The lived experience of elderly people who feel life is completed and no longer worth living," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 257-264.
    4. Kirby, Emma & Broom, Alex & MacArtney, John & Lewis, Sophie & Good, Phillip, 2021. "Hopeful dying? The meanings and practice of hope in palliative care family meetings," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    5. Cohen, Joachim & Bilsen, Johan & Hooft, Peter & Deboosere, Patrick & Wal, Gerrit van der & Deliens, Luc, 2006. "Dying at home or in an institution: Using death certificates to explore the factors associated with place of death," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(2-3), pages 319-329, October.
    6. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    7. Peretti-Watel, P. & Bendiane, M.K. & Moatti, J.P., 2005. "Attitudes toward palliative care, conceptions of euthanasia and opinions about its legalization among French physicians," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 1781-1793, April.
    8. Hauge, Amalie M., 2020. "One last round of chemo? Insights from conversations between oncologists and lung cancer patients about prognosis and treatment decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    9. Mei, Xiao & Tu, Jiong, 2021. "Values, skills, and decision-making: A cultural sociological approach to explaining diagnostic disclosure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    10. N. C. A. van der Velden & M. B. A. van der Kleij & V. Lehmann & E. M. A. Smets & J. M. L. Stouthard & I. Henselmans & M. A. Hillen, 2021. "Communication about Prognosis during Patient-Initiated Second Opinion Consultations in Advanced Cancer Care: An Observational Qualitative Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-15, May.
    11. Brian Nkwinda & Wanda Jacobs & Charlene Downing, 2019. "Patient Satisfaction With Caring at a District Hospital in Malawi," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Duberstein, Paul R. & Hoerger, Michael & Norton, Sally A. & Mohile, Supriya & Dahlberg, Britt & Hyatt, Erica Goldblatt & Epstein, Ronald M. & Wittink, Marsha N., 2023. "The TRIBE model: How socioemotional processes fuel end-of-life treatment in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).

    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:eee:socmed:v:220:y:2019:i:c:p:212-218. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.