IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v290y2021ics0277953621005402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When patients and clinician (dis)agree about the nature of the problem: The role of displays of shared understanding in acceptance of treatment

Author

Listed:
  • McCabe, Rose

Abstract

Globally, 4.4% of the world's population suffer from depressive disorder, and 3.6% from anxiety disorder. Previous work found considerable negotiation between providers and patients about the nature of mental health problems and frequent patient resistance to treatment. However, how doctor-patient shared understanding of the problem is reflected in treatment recommendations and whether this is consequential for patient acceptance of treatment is poorly understood. This study explored shared understanding of the problem and patient acceptance of treatment using conversation analysis. In 52 U.K. video recorded primary care consultations (collected July 2014–April 2015), 33 treatment recommendations for medication or talking therapy were identified. Shared understanding was explored focusing on: whether the patient presented the mental health problem as their primary initial concern and how they characterised the concern; whether the mental health concern was raised by the patient; and how the doctor aligned with the patient's earlier characterisation of the problem in the treatment recommendation itself. These phenomena were coded for each treatment recommendation and the impact on treatment acceptance was explored. Patients accepted the recommendation immediately in 38% cases and actively resisted in 62% cases. However, two communication behaviors were associated with patient acceptance: recommending treatment for the patient's initial focal concern and doctors' turn design in the recommendation itself, i.e., using the patient's earlier words from the initial problem presentation to describe and characterise the problem. Given the global burden of mental health problems and frequent patient resistance to treatment, understanding how professionals can engage more closely with the patient's perspective is important. When doctors use the patient's precise words from the initial problem presentation in the treatment recommendation, this displays an understanding of the patient's perspective and personalisation of treatment based on the underlying biomedical or social causes, which then impacts on patient acceptance of treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • McCabe, Rose, 2021. "When patients and clinician (dis)agree about the nature of the problem: The role of displays of shared understanding in acceptance of treatment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:290:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621005402
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621005402
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114208?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. Heritage, John & McArthur, Amanda, 2019. "The diagnostic moment: A study in US primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 262-271.
    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. Paulus, Trena M. & Grubbs, Heather & Rice-Moran, Renee & Lester, Jessica N., 2023. "How student healthcare providers in a communication skills course respond to standardized patient resistance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 337(C).
    2. Silva, Jennifer M. & Durden, T. Elizabeth & Hirsch, Annemarie, 2023. "Erasing inequality: Examining discrepancies between electronic health records and patient narratives to uncover perceived stigma and dismissal in clinical encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    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. Wei, Wan, 2024. "Beyond the patient-doctor dyad: Examining “other” patient engagement in Traditional Chinese Medicine consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(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. Zhao, Chunjuan & Ma, Wen, 2020. "Patient resistance towards clinicians’ diagnostic test-taking advice and its management in Chinese outpatient clinic interaction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    2. Gutin, Iliya, 2022. "Not ‘putting a name to it’: Managing uncertainty in the diagnosis of childhood obesity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    3. Shachar, Leeor, 2022. "“You become a slightly better doctor”: Doctors adopting integrated medical expertise through interactions with E-patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    4. Zhang, Shuai & Cheng, Meili & Ma, Wen & Liu, Huashui & Zhao, Chunjuan, 2023. "Companion responses to diagnosis in Chinese outpatient clinical interaction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    5. Sideman, Alissa Bernstein & Razon, Na'amah, 2024. "Extra/ordinary medicine: Toward an anthropology of primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 346(C).
    6. Jin, Ying & Kim, Younhee, 2022. "Dietary advice in chronic care: Comparing traditional Chinese and western medicine practiced in mainland China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(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:290:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621005402. 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.