IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i2p299-323..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘She Wanted to Listen to her General Practitioner’s Advice…’: Exploring and Explaining Antibiotic Prescribing as a Regulatory Encounter

Author

Listed:
  • David J Carter

Abstract

This article examines the pressing global problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), applying motivational posture theory to demonstrate how AMR and the prescribing that drives it can be considered a regulatory challenge. Following an outline of AMR and the threat of the ‘superbugs’ to which it gives rise, the article assesses the regulatory nature of the ‘prescribing encounter’ in the primary care setting. It applies both a responsive regulatory lens and motivational posture theory to analyse over 100 narrative accounts of encounters between a general practitioner and a patient. In so doing, the article examines the discursive repertoires and cultural resources available to primary care patients to explain the prescribing encounter and the dynamics within it. It concludes that patients conceive of prescribers as regulatory authorities and prescribing itself as a regulatory encounter. On this basis, the article argues that applying responsive regulatory theory and practice in response to the AMR challenge is likely to find reasonable patient acceptance, offering a new approach to this currently intractable challenge. This article then offers an analysis of what factors indicate patient drift towards defiance of regulatory aims, and what engagement and support encourage a return to cooperation.

Suggested Citation

  • David J Carter, 2022. "‘She Wanted to Listen to her General Practitioner’s Advice…’: Exploring and Explaining Antibiotic Prescribing as a Regulatory Encounter," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 299-323.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:2:p:299-323.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwac003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:2:p:299-323.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    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.