IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v354y2024ics0277953624005240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Formulating cancer worries: How doctors establish medical expertise and authority to facilitate patients’ care choices

Author

Listed:
  • Beach, Wayne A.

Abstract

Video recordings of oncology interviews reveal how doctors rely on worry to establish medical expertise, facilitate treatment decision-making, and construct worry parameters to help patients understand whether there is a reasonable need for worry or not. Doctors express worry as frequently as cancer patients during oncology interviews, but they face a dilemma: how to provide care for cancer patients without directly stating they are worried about them? Plausible explanations are offered for why doctors do not state personal worries. Conversation analytic methods were employed to identify how doctors rely on worry to achieve distinct social actions. Four worry formulations are examined: (1) variations of “we worry” (and at times, non-specific and second person “you”), (2) hypothetical worry scenarios, (3) dismissing worry and offering assurance, and (4) doctors claiming they are not worried, bothered, or alarmed. Doctors align with and speak for the professionals and institutions they represent, expressing collective worries and claiming the legitimate right to worry (or not). Doctors also avoid abandoning patients to their own decision-making, yet do not formulate worry to coerce deference or dictate patients' choices. In all cases patients agreed and displayed minimal resistance to doctors’ worry formulations. These findings contribute to ongoing work across institutional settings where participants have been shown to construct objective, legitimate claims meriting worries about diverse problems. Work is underway to examine when and how patients explicitly raise and doctors respond to cancer worries. Clinical implications are raised for how doctors can use worry to legitimize best treatment options, help patients minimize their worries, rely on hypothetical scenarios allowing patients to compare how other patients managed their cancer, and not dismiss the importance of minimizing the need to worry as a resource for offering reassurance.

Suggested Citation

  • Beach, Wayne A., 2024. "Formulating cancer worries: How doctors establish medical expertise and authority to facilitate patients’ care choices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 354(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:354:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624005240
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624005240
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117071?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.
    2. Beach, Wayne A. & Easter, David W. & Good, Jeffrey S. & Pigeron, Elisa, 2005. "Disclosing and responding to cancer "fears" during oncology interviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 893-910, February.
    3. Pilnick, Alison & Dingwall, Robert, 2011. "On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1374-1382, April.
    4. Hudak, Pamela L. & Clark, Shannon J. & Raymond, Geoffrey, 2011. "How surgeons design treatment recommendations in orthopaedic surgery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(7), pages 1028-1036.
    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. Angell, Beth & Bolden, Galina B., 2015. "Justifying medication decisions in mental health care: Psychiatrists' accounts for treatment recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 44-56.
    2. Llanwarne, Nadia & Newbould, Jennifer & Burt, Jenni & Campbell, John L. & Roland, Martin, 2017. "Wasting the doctor's time? A video-elicitation interview study with patients in primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 113-122.
    3. Murdoch, Jamie & Salter, Charlotte & Ford, John & Lenaghan, Elizabeth & Shiner, Alice & Steel, Nicholas, 2020. "The “unknown territory” of goal-setting: Negotiating a novel interactional activity within primary care doctor-patient consultations for patients with multiple chronic conditions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    4. Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby & Svennevig, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Pål, 2016. "Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 26-36.
    5. 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).
    6. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    7. Gutin, Iliya, 2022. "Not ‘putting a name to it’: Managing uncertainty in the diagnosis of childhood obesity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    8. 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).
    9. Kath MacDonald & Lindesay Irvine & Margaret Coulter Smith, 2015. "An exploration of partnership through interactions between young ‘expert’ patients with cystic fibrosis and healthcare professionals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(23-24), pages 3528-3537, December.
    10. Jennifer Chamberlain-Salaun & Kim Usher & Jane Mills, 2020. "Outsiders in the Experts’ World: A Grounded Theory Study of Consumers and the Social World of Health Care," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    11. Ayuandini, Sherria, 2017. "Finger Pricks and Blood Vials: How doctors medicalize ‘cultural’ solutions to demedicalize the ‘broken’ hymen in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 61-68.
    12. Toerien, Merran, 2021. "When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    13. Swinglehurst, Deborah, 2014. "Displays of authority in the clinical consultation: A linguistic ethnographic study of the electronic patient record," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 17-26.
    14. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    15. de Kok, B.C. & Widdicombe, S. & Pilnick, A. & Laurier, E., 2018. "Doing patient-centredness versus achieving public health targets: A critical review of interactional dilemmas in ART adherence support," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 17-25.
    16. Rosalind Waller & Michael Tholander & Doris Nilsson, 2017. "‘You Will Have These Ones!’: Six Women’s Experiences of Being Pressured to Make a Contraceptive Choice That Did Not Feel Right," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, September.
    17. Lian, Olaug S. & Nettleton, Sarah & Wifstad, Åge & Dowrick, Christopher, 2021. "Negotiating uncertainty in clinical encounters: A narrative exploration of naturally occurring primary care consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    18. White, Anne Elizabeth Clark, 2020. "When and how do surgeons initiate noticings of additional concerns?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    19. Smailhodzic, Edin & Boonstra, Albert & Langley, David J., 2021. "Social media enabled interactions in healthcare: Towards a taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    20. Tutton, Richard, 2012. "Personalizing medicine: Futures present and past," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1721-1728.

    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:354:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624005240. 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.