IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i16p5653-d394961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Being Heard, Exerting Influence, or Knowing How to Play the Game? Expectations of Client Involvement among Social and Health Care Professionals and Clients

Author

Listed:
  • Elina Weiste

    (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 40, FI-00032 Helsinki, Finland
    Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 54, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Sari Käpykangas

    (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 40, FI-00032 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Lise-Lotte Uusitalo

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 54, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Melisa Stevanovic

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 54, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland)

Abstract

Contemporary social and health care services exhibit a significant movement toward increasing client involvement in their own care and in the development of services. This major cultural change represents a marked shift in the client’s role from a passive patient to an active empowered agent. We draw on interaction-oriented focus group research and conversation analysis to study workshop conversations in which social and health care clients and professionals discussed “client involvement”. Our analysis focuses on the participants’ mutually congruent or discrepant views on the topic. The professionals and clients both saw client involvement as an ideal that should be promoted. Although both participant groups considered the clients’ experience of being heard a prerequisite of client involvement, the clients deviated from the professionals in that they also highlighted the need for actual decision-making power. However, when the professionals invoked the clients’ responsibility for their own treatment, the clients were not eager to agree with their view. In addition, in analyzing problems of client involvement during the clients’ and professionals’ meta-talk about client involvement, the paper also shows how the “client involvement” rhetoric itself may, paradoxically, sometimes serve to hinder here-and-now client involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:16:p:5653-:d:394961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/16/5653/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/16/5653/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Karacay, Gaye & Bayraktar, Secil & Kabasakal, Hayat & Dastmalchian, Ali, 2019. "Role of Leaders as Agents of Negotiation for Counterbalancing Cultural Dissonance in the Middle East and North Africa Region," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(4).
    4. Jane Aronson, 1993. "Giving Consumers a Say in Policy Development: Influencing Policy or Just Being Heard?," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 19(4), pages 367-378, December.
    5. Maria Schultz & Thomas Hahn & Claudia Ituarte-Lima & Niclas Hällström, 2018. "Deliberative multi-actor dialogues as opportunities for transformative social learning and conflict resolution in international environmental negotiations," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 671-688, October.
    6. Gelbrich, Katja & Stedham, Yvonne & Gäthke, Daniel, 2016. "Cultural Discrepancy and National Corruption: Investigating the Difference between Cultural Values and Practices and Its Relationship to Corrupt Behavior," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 201-225, April.
    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. 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).
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Minbaeva, Dana & Rabbiosi, Larissa & Stahl, Günter K., 2018. "Not walking the talk? How host country cultural orientations may buffer the damage of corporate values’ misalignment in multinational corporations," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 880-895.
    9. 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.
    10. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Changwatchai, Piyaphan & Dheera-aumpon, Siwapong, 2023. "Culture and bribe giving: Evidence from firm-level data," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    20. Ruth Astbury & Ashley Shepherd & Helen Cheyne, 2017. "Working in partnership: the application of shared decision‐making to health visitor practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 215-224, January.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:16:p:5653-:d:394961. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.