2004
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

Medical consultation nowadays generally proceeds in accordance with the process of shared decision-making (SDM). In the literature on medical communication, the general characteristics of this process seem to be agreed upon. With respect to the specific division of labour between doctor and patient, however, different alternatives are suggested. In this paper we approach the process of SDM from the perspective of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. We translate the contributions of doctor and patient to this process in terms of the ideal model of a critical discussion, taking into account both the general characteristics and the different alternatives for the division of labour proposed in the literature. The resulting analytical tool enables a more precise analysis of the process of SDM and creates a starting point for a well-founded evaluation of the contributions of doctor and patient to this process.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.019.SNOE
2019-04-01
2022-10-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/41/1/19_TVT2019.1_SNOE.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.019.SNOE&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T.(1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter. What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine, 44(5), 681-692.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T.(1999). Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter. Revisiting the shared treatment decision making model. Social Science & Medicine, 49(5), 651-661.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dubov, A.(2015). Ethical persuasion. The rhetoric of communication in critical care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 21, 496-502.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.(1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.(2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Emanuel, E. J., & Emanuel, L. L.(1992). Four models of the physician-patient relationship. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(16), 2221-2226.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Engelhardt, E., Pieterse, A. H., Van der Hout, A., De Haes, H. J. C. J. M., Kroep, J. R., Quarles van Ufford-Mannasse, P., Portielje, J. E. A., Smets, E. M. A., & Stiggelbout, A. M.(2016). Use of implicit persuasion in decision making about adjuvant cancer treatment. A potential barrier to shared decision making. European Journal of Cancer, 66, 55-66.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Goodnight, T. G.(2006). When reasons matter most: Pragma-dialectics and the problem of informed consent. In P.Houtlosser & M. A.van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-dialectics. A Festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 75-85). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ishikawa, H., Hashimoto, H., & Kiuchi, T.(2013). The evolving concept of ‘patient-centeredness’ in patient-physician communication research. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 147-153.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kaba, R., & Sooriakumaran, P.(2007). The evolution of the doctor-patient relationship. International Journal of Surgery, 5, 57-65.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Karnieli-Miller, O., & Eisikovits, Z.(2009). Physician as partner or salesman. Shared decision making in real-time encounters. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 1-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Klaveren, H. van(2017). Evaluating the applicability of the shared decision-making model. The asymmetry between doctor and patient in the 21st century. Masterscriptie, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Labrie, N. H. M.(2014). For the sake of argument. Considering the role, characteristics and effects of argumentation in general practice consultation. Dissertation, University of Lugano.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Laidsaar-Powell, R. C., Butow, P. N., Bu, S., Charles, C., Gafni, A., Lam, W. W. T., Jansen, J., McCaffery, K. J., Shepherd, H. L., Tattersall, M. H. N., & Juraskova, I.(2013). Physician-patient-companion communication and decision-making. A systematic review of triadic medical consultations. Patient Education and Counseling, 91, 3-13.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lindström, A., & Weatherall, A.(2015). Orientations to epistemics and deontics in treatment discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 39-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Makoul, G., & Clayman, M. L.(2006). An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 60, 301-312.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Raymond, C. W., (2014). Conveying information in the interpreter-mediated medical visit. The case of epistemic brokering. Patient Education and Counseling, 97, 38-46.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Mohammed, D.(2012). Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared decision medical decision making. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 19-32.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Stevanovic, M.(2013). Deontic rights in interaction. A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. Dissertation, University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Stiggelbout, A. M., Pieterse, A. H., & De Haes, J. C. J. M.(2015). Shared decision making. Concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Education and Counseling, 98, 1172-1179.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Towle, A., & Godolphin, W.(1999). Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. British Medical Journal, 319(7212), 766-769.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.019.SNOE
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.019.SNOE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error