IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v266y2020ics0277953620303944.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presenting treatment options in breast cancer consultations: Advice and consent in Italian medical care

Author

Listed:
  • Fatigante, Marilena
  • Heritage, John
  • Alby, Francesca
  • Zucchermaglio, Cristina

Abstract

Variety, complexity and uncertainty in the therapy outcomes of cancer illness make the treatment recommendation (TR) in oncology a “monumentally difficult task”. Previous studies have distinguished unilateral and bilateral formats of treatment recommendations, accordingly to whether, or to what extent, the patient's perspective is included in the consideration of therapeutic options. Others have also shown how the oncologists' presentation of therapeutic options varied accordingly to the severity of the diagnosis and the availability of alternatives. Yet, no study has systemically dentified and compared components of treatment recommendation in oncology on a common set of patients and clinicians.

Suggested Citation

  • Fatigante, Marilena & Heritage, John & Alby, Francesca & Zucchermaglio, Cristina, 2020. "Presenting treatment options in breast cancer consultations: Advice and consent in Italian medical care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620303944
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620303944
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113175?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. 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. Epstein, Ronald M. & Franks, Peter & Fiscella, Kevin & Shields, Cleveland G. & Meldrum, Sean C. & Kravitz, Richard L. & Duberstein, Paul R., 2005. "Measuring patient-centered communication in Patient-Physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1516-1528, October.
    3. Arora, Neeraj K., 2003. "Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians' communication behavior," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(5), pages 791-806, September.
    4. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. Sterponi, Laura & Zucchermaglio, Cristina & Fatigante, Marilena & Alby, Francesca, 2019. "Structuring times and activities in the oncology visit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 211-222.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    2. Eduardo Pérez & David P. Dzubay, 2021. "A scheduling-based methodology for improving patient perceptions of quality of care in intensive care units," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 203-215, March.
    3. Bergen, Clara & McCabe, Rose, 2021. "Negative stance towards treatment in psychosocial assessments: The role of personalised recommendations in promoting acceptance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    4. Budych, Karolina & Helms, Thomas M. & Schultz, Carsten, 2012. "How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient–physician interaction," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 154-164.
    5. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2018. "“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 48-54.
    6. Elina Weiste & Sari Käpykangas & Lise-Lotte Uusitalo & Melisa Stevanovic, 2020. "Being Heard, Exerting Influence, or Knowing How to Play the Game? Expectations of Client Involvement among Social and Health Care Professionals and Clients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    8. 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.
    9. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    10. Wonjeong Chae & Dong-Woo Choi & Eun-Cheol Park & Sung-In Jang, 2021. "Improved Inpatient Care through Greater Patient–Doctor Contact under the Hospitalist Management Approach: A Real-Time Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-12, May.
    11. Sheng-Yu Fan & Jyh-Gang Hsieh, 2020. "The Experience of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders and End-of-Life Care Discussions among Physicians," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-10, September.
    12. Petersson, Jesper & Backman, Christel, 2022. "Patient-accessible online health records: Reconfigurations of clinical rhythms and doctors’ front- and backstage spaces," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    13. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    14. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    15. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    16. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    17. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    18. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    19. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    20. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.

    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:266:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620303944. 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.