IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i9-10p1430-1444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient participation, decision‐makers and information flow in surgical treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Liv‐Helen Heggland
  • Kjell Hausken

Abstract

Aims and objectives To clarify patient participation by specifying three kinds of information flows between healthcare professionals and patients in four models such as the paternalistic, shared, informed and nonpaternalistic models. Background The relationship between healthcare professionals and patients has evolved from a traditional paternalistic model where ‘doctors know best' and patients are passive recipients, to a partnership where patients act as active participants. Design A qualitative study. Methods Qualitative data from interviews with four doctors, seven nurses and seven patients illustrate these relationships. Results A 3 × 3 matrix is developed where healthcare professionals can make decisions unilaterally, patients can make decisions unilaterally, or these can make decisions jointly. Information can flow from healthcare professionals to patient, from patient to healthcare professionals or both ways. Conclusions This conceptualisation provides a rich understanding of decision‐making and information flow in surgical hospitals. Relevance to clinical practice The paper illustrates how practice can be assessed empirically to determine how it fits into the structure. Strategies can be implemented to move practice from one part of the structure to another part.

Suggested Citation

  • Liv‐Helen Heggland & Kjell Hausken, 2014. "Patient participation, decision‐makers and information flow in surgical treatment," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(9-10), pages 1430-1444, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:9-10:p:1430-1444
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12395
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12395?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. Entwistle, Vikki & Williams, Brian & Skea, Zoe & MacLennan, Graeme & Bhattacharya, Siladitya, 2006. "Which surgical decisions should patients participate in and how? Reflections on women's recollections of discussions about variants of hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 499-509, January.
    2. 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.
    3. repec:bla:scotjp:v:46:y:1999:i:2:p:111-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Anthony Scott & Sandra Vick, 1999. "Patients, Doctors and Contracts: An Application of Principal‐Agent Theory to the Doctor‐Patient Relationship," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 46(2), pages 111-134, May.
    5. Gaston, Christine M. & Mitchell, Geoffrey, 2005. "Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 2252-2264, November.
    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. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    2. Bugge, Carol & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian S., 2006. "The significance for decision-making of information that is not exchanged by patients and health professionals during consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2065-2078, October.
    3. Liv-Helen Heggland & Kjell Hausken, 2013. "A Qualitative Identification of Categories of Patient Participation in Decision-Making by Health Care Professionals and Patients During Surgical Treatment," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 22(2), pages 206-227, May.
    4. Liv‐Helen Heggland & Aslaug Mikkelsen & Kjell Hausken, 2013. "Models, phases and cases of patient participation in decision‐making in surgical treatment in Norway: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 39-44, March.
    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. 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.
    7. Susan J. Méndez & Jongsay Yong & Hugh Gravelle & Anthony Scott, 2024. "Medical pricing decisions: Evidence from Australian specialists," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2024n11, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. Jannie Christina Frølund & Anders Løkke & Hanne Irene Jensen & Ingeborg Farver-Vestergaard, 2024. "The Use of Podcasts as Patient Preparation for Hospital Visits—An Interview Study Exploring Patients’ Experiences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(6), pages 1-14, June.
    13. 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.
    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. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    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.

    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:23:y:2014:i:9-10:p:1430-1444. 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.