Karnieli-Miller Orit, Eisikovits Zvi
Department of Community Mental Health, & Concentration for Excellence in Patient-Professional Relationship in Health Care, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel.
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jul;69(1):1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.04.030. Epub 2009 May 20.
The results of recent research have led to the increased advocacy of shared decision-making regarding medical treatment. Nonetheless, only a limited number of studies have focused on the process of decision-making in real-time encounters. The present paper aims to document and analyze this process. Specifically, we assess whether these decisions are the result of partnership or of persuasive tactics based on power and hierarchical relationships. We will describe and analyze different strategies used by pediatric gastroenterologists in breaking bad news encounters, as well as their consequences. The analysis is based on a multi-method, multi-participant phenomenological study on breaking bad news to adolescents and their families regarding a chronic illness. It included 17 units of analysis (actual encounters and 52 interviews with physicians, parents and adolescents). Data were collected from three hospitals in Northern Israel using observations and audiotapes of diagnosis disclosure encounters and audio-taped interviews with all participants. The analysis identified eight different presentation tactics used in actual encounters during which physicians made various use of language, syntax and different sources of power to persuade patients to agree with their preferred treatment choice. The tactics included various ways of presenting the illness, treatment and side effects; providing examples from other success or failure stories; sharing the decision only concerning technicalities; and using plurals and authority. The findings suggest that shared decision-making may be advocated as a philosophical tenet or a value, but it is not necessarily implemented in actual communication with patients. Rather, treatment decisions tend to be unilaterally made, and a variety of persuasive approaches are used to ensure agreement with the physician's recommendation. The discussion is focused on the complexity of sharing a decision, especially in the initial bad news encounter; and the potentially harmful implications on building a trusting relationship between the physician and the family when a decision is not shared.
近期的研究结果促使人们对医疗治疗的共同决策给予更多倡导。尽管如此,仅有有限数量的研究聚焦于实时医患交流中的决策过程。本文旨在记录并分析这一过程。具体而言,我们评估这些决策是基于伙伴关系的结果,还是基于权力和等级关系的说服策略的结果。我们将描述并分析儿科胃肠病学家在传达坏消息的医患交流中所使用的不同策略及其后果。该分析基于一项针对向青少年及其家庭传达慢性病坏消息的多方法、多参与者的现象学研究。它包括17个分析单元(实际医患交流以及对医生、家长和青少年的52次访谈)。数据收集自以色列北部的三家医院,通过对诊断披露交流的观察和录音以及对所有参与者的录音访谈获取。分析确定了在实际医患交流中使用的八种不同的呈现策略,在此过程中医生以各种方式运用语言、句法和不同的权力来源来说服患者同意他们偏好的治疗选择。这些策略包括呈现疾病、治疗和副作用的各种方式;列举其他成功或失败案例;仅就技术细节分享决策;以及使用复数形式和权威表述。研究结果表明,共同决策可能作为一种哲学原则或价值观得到倡导,但在与患者的实际沟通中不一定会得到落实。相反,治疗决策往往是单方面做出的,并且会采用各种说服方法来确保患者同意医生的建议。讨论聚焦于共同决策的复杂性,尤其是在最初传达坏消息的医患交流中;以及当决策未共享时对建立医患之间信任关系可能产生的有害影响。