Making information 'relevant': General Practitioner judgments andthe production of patient involvement

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 96, Issue , 2013, Pages 104-111

  Clinch, Megan ^a   Benson, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular diseases; Decision making; Patient centred care; Physician patient relations; Primary prevention; United Kingdom

Indexed keywords

HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH GEOGRAPHY; STANDARD (REFERENCE);

ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRESCRIPTION; PRIMARY PREVENTION; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; STANDARDIZATION; UNITED KINGDOM; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

UNITED KINGDOM;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; JUDGMENT; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRIMARY PREVENTION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 84883674831     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.034     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Armstrong D. Clinical autonomy, individual and collective: the problem of changing doctors' behaviour. Social Science & Med 2002, 55(10):1771-1777.
2. Atkinson P. Medical talk and medical work 1995, SAGE, London.
3. Beauchamp T.L., Childress J.F. Principles of biomedical ethics 2009, Oxford University Press, New York; Oxford. 6th ed.
4. Berg M., Mol A. Differences in medicine: Unravelling practices, techniques and bodies 1995, Duke University Press, Durham, N Ca.
5. Boltanski L., Thévenot L. The reality of moral expectations: a sociology of situated judgment. Philosophical Explorations 2000, III(1).
6. Bourdieu P. Outline of a theory of practice 1979, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7. Charles C., Gafini A., Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (Or: it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine 1997, 44:681-692.
8. Charles C., Gafni A., Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Social Science & Medicine 1999, 49(5):651-661.
9. Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared decision making. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 1997, 2:112-121.
10. Department of Health Coronary heart disease: National service framework for coronary heart disease-modern standards and service models 2000.
11. Edwards A., Elwyn G. Shared decision-making in health care: Achieving evidence-based patient choice 2009, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2nd ed.
12. Elwyn G. Arriving at the postmodern medical consultation. Primary Care 2005, 5:287-291.
13. Elwyn G., Laitner S., Coulter A., Walker E. Implementing shared decision-making in the NHS. British Medical Journal 2010, 341:c5146.
14. Entwistle V.A., Carter S.M., Cribb A., McCaffery K. Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2010, 25(7):741-745.
15. Entwistle V.A., Cribb A., Watt I.S. Shared decision-making: enhancing the clinical relevance. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2012, 105(10):416-421. Supplement.
16. Entwistle V.A., Watt I.S. Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: the case for a broader conceptual framework. Patient Education and Counseling 2006, 63(3):268-278.
17. Frank K. Agency. Anthropological Theory 2006, 6(3):281-302.
18. General Medical Council Good medical practice 2006.
19. Lock M., Gordon D. Biomedicine examined. Culture, illness, and healing 1988, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; Boston.
20. Mackenzie C., Stoljar N. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self 2000, Oxford University Press, New York; Oxford.
21. Marteau T. Informed choice: a construct in search of a name. Shared decision-making in health care: Achieving evidence-based patient choice 2009, Oxford University Press, Oxford. A. Edwards, G. Elwyn (Eds.).
22. Marteau T.M., Dormandy E. Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing?. American Journal of Medical Genetics 2001, 106(3):185-190.
23. Miles M. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook 1994, Sage, California. 2nd ed.
24. Mol A. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice 2003, Duke University Press.
25. Montori V.M., Gafni A., Charles C. Ashared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expectations 2006, 9(1):25-36.
26. Moreira T. Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation. Social Science & Medicine 2005, 60(9):1975-1985.
27. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Statins for the prevention of cardiovascular events 2006, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London.
28. Osborne T. Power and persons: on ethical stylisation and person-centred medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness 1994, 16(4):515-535.
29. Pope C. Analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal 2000, 320:114-116.
30. Rapley T. Distributed decision-making: the anatomy of decisions-in-action. Sociology of Health & Illness 2008, 30(3):429-444.
31. Rapley T., May C. Evidence and risk: the sociology of health care. Shared decision-making in health care: Achieving evidence - Based patient choice 2009, OUP, Oxford. A. Edwards, G. Elwyn (Eds.).
32. Reeve J. Interpretive medicine: supporting generalism in a changing primary care world. Occasional Paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) 2010, 88:1-20.
33. Sherwin S. Arelational approach to autonomy in healthcare. The politics of women's health: Exploring agency and autonomy 1998, 19-47. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. S. Sherwin, Feminist Health Care Ethics Research Network (Eds.).
34. Sherwin S. Arelational approach to autonomy in healthcare. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self 2000, Oxford University Press, New York; Oxford. C. Mackenzie, N. Stoljar (Eds.).
35. Shortus T., Kemp L., McKenzie S., Harris M. 'Managing patient involvement': Provider perspectives on diabetes decision-making. Health expectations 2011.
36. Walker R.L. Medical ethics needs a new view of autonomy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2009, 33:594-608.
37. Will C.M. Arguing about the evidence: readers, writers and inscription devices in coronary heart disease risk assessment. Sociology of Health & Illness 2005, 27(6):780-801.
38. Wirtz V., Cribb A., Barber N. Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation-a critical analysis of models. Social Science & Medicine 2006, 62(1):116-124.