IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/nuhsci/v15y2013i1p39-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Models, phases and cases of patient participation in decision‐making in surgical treatment in Norway: A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Liv‐Helen Heggland
  • Aslaug Mikkelsen
  • Kjell Hausken

Abstract

This study improves our understanding of patients' participation in hospital treatment‐decision processes. We explored the degree of patient participation perceived by both patients and healthcare professionals in four phases of the decision process: information dissemination, formulation of options, integration of information, and control within four models of interactions between healthcare professionals and patients: the paternalistic model, the shared model, the informed model, and the non‐paternalistic model. The analysis was based on 18 in‐depth, exploratory interviews with patients and healthcare professionals in six surgical units in Norway. Knowledge about how patients and healthcare professionals interact in the surgical‐decision process is important for developing systems and arenas for patient participation in practice, and for a climate and culture to further support the implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:15:y:2013:i:1:p:39-44
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2012.00716.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2012.00716.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2012.00716.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. 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. repec:bla:scotjp:v:46:y:1999:i:2:p:111-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marja Härkänen & Marjo Kervinen & Jouni Ahonen & Hannele Turunen & Katri Vehviläinen‐Julkunen, 2015. "An observational study of how patients are identified before medication administrations in medical and surgical wards," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 188-194, June.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    13. 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.
    14. 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).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    18. Solomon, Josie & Knapp, Peter & Raynor, D.K. & Atkin, Karl, 2013. "Worlds apart? An exploration of prescribing and medicine-taking decisions by patients, GPs and local policy makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 264-272.
    19. Debra Kerr & Rosie Crone & Trisha Dunning, 2020. "Perspectives about dignity during acute care for older people and their relatives: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4116-4127, November.
    20. Jäckle, Annette & Auspurg, Katrin, 2012. "First equals most important? Order effects in vignette-based measurement," ISER Working Paper Series 2012-01, Institute for Social and Economic Research.

    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:nuhsci:v:15:y:2013:i:1:p:39-44. 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)1442-2018 .

    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.