IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v15y2006i1p4-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Boundaries around the ‘well‐informed’ patient: the contribution of Schutz to inform nurses’ interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda Henderson

Abstract

Aim. The aim of this paper is to explore the operation of two different types of knowledge in health care and the position of the nurse to assist in the confluence of knowledge to develop the well‐informed patient. Background. If patients are to be active participants in their care they require useful information. Interactions in contemporary health care mostly involve ‘medico‐scientific’ knowledge, that refers to the ‘science’ of patients’ conditions, as opposed to ‘everyday’ knowledge, which refers to information that can assist patients in lifestyle matters relating to their condition. Theoretical perspective. This paper draws on the work of the ‘well‐informed citizen’ as proposed by Schutz in the analysis of two patient case studies of practices in the acute care setting of the hospital. Method. Data collection was undertaken through fieldwork, incorporating participant observation and discussions with patients in general medical/surgical areas. Results. Two patient case studies representative of the findings are analysed. Analysis identifies the predominant use of ‘medico‐scientific’ knowledge to the detriment of ‘everyday’ knowledge during interactions between patients and all health professionals. Conclusions. There is predisposition in the acute context to interact in ‘medico‐scientific’ knowledge as opposed to ‘everyday’ knowledge that does not facilitate a comprehensive understanding by patients of how they can best manage their lifestyle. Relevance to clinical practice. Using the notion of Schutz's ‘well‐informed’ citizen this study identifies strategies for nursing staff to capture and explore the development of ‘everyday’ knowledge that can assist patients to become more informed and improve their health management.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda Henderson, 2006. "Boundaries around the ‘well‐informed’ patient: the contribution of Schutz to inform nurses’ interactions," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 4-10, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:4-10
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01261.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01261.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01261.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Makoul, Gregory & Arntson, Paul & Schofield, Theo, 1995. "Health promotion in primary care: Physician-patient communication and decision making about prescription medications," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1241-1254, November.
    2. Bourhis, Richard Y. & Roth, Sharon & MacQueen, Glenda, 1989. "Communication in the hospital setting: A survey of medical and everyday language use amongst patients, nurses and doctors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 339-346, January.
    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. Chatwin, John & Kennedy, Anne & Firth, Adam & Povey, Andrew & Rogers, Anne & Sanders, Caroline, 2014. "How potentially serious symptom changes are talked about and managed in COPD clinical review consultations: A micro-analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 120-136.
    2. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    3. Gibson, Mark & Neil Jenkings, K. & Wilson, Rob & Purves, Ian, 2006. "Verbal prescribing in general practice consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1684-1698, September.
    4. Cheryl Nakata & Elif Izberk-Bilgin & Lisa Sharp & Jelena Spanjol & Anna Shaojie Cui & Stephanie Y. Crawford & Yazhen Xiao, 2019. "Chronic illness medication compliance: a liminal and contextual consumer journey," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 192-215, March.
    5. Roscigno, Cecelia I. & Savage, Teresa A. & Grant, Gerald & Philipsen, Gerry, 2013. "How healthcare provider talk with parents of children following severe traumatic brain injury is perceived in early acute care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 32-39.
    6. Zailani, Suhaiza & Ali, Suhana Mohezar & Iranmanesh, Mohammad & Moghavvemi, Sedigheh & Musa, Ghazali, 2016. "Predicting Muslim medical tourists' satisfaction with Malaysian Islamic friendly hospitals," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 159-167.
    7. Vrana, Scott R. & Vrana, Dylan T. & Penner, Louis A. & Eggly, Susan & Slatcher, Richard B. & Hagiwara, Nao, 2018. "Latent Semantic Analysis: A new measure of patient-physician communication," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 22-26.
    8. Marla L. Clayman & Carma L. Bylund & Betty Chewning & Gregory Makoul, 2016. "The Impact of Patient Participation in Health Decisions Within Medical Encounters," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 427-452, May.
    9. Yulia A. Strekalova, 2018. "Defining Research: The Effect of Linguistic Choices on the Intentions to Participate in Clinical Research," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 27(7), pages 790-799, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:4-10. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.