Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024 Oct;72(10):3179-3187. doi: 10.1111/jgs.19121. Epub 2024 Aug 14.
Public health campaigns have often used persuasive techniques to promote healthy behaviors but the use of persuasion by doctors is controversial. We sought to examine older women's perspectives.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 community-dwelling older women from the Baltimore metropolitan area. We asked whether participants thought it was ethically appropriate for doctors to try to persuade patients and explored their rationales. We probed about commonly used persuasive techniques and two example decisional contexts-stopping mammograms and moving out of one's house after multiple falls. We used qualitative thematic analysis to code the transcripts and summarized results into major themes.
We found mixed views on the ethical appropriateness of persuasion (theme 1); supporters of persuasion were motivated by the potential benefit to patients' health, whereas opponents thought patients should be the ultimate decision-makers. Perspectives depended on the persuasive technique (theme 2), where emotional appeals elicited the most negative reactions while use of facts and patient stories were viewed more positively. Perspectives also varied by the decisional context (theme 3), where higher severity and certainty of harm influenced participants to be more accepting of persuasion. Participants suggested alternative communication approaches to persuasion (theme 4) that emphasized respect for patients.
Our findings suggest that the type of persuasive technique and the decisional context are important considerations in the ethical debate around the use of persuasion. Limiting the use of persuasion to high-stakes decisions and using facts and patient stories rather than emotional appeals are likely more acceptable.
公共卫生运动经常使用有说服力的技巧来促进健康行为,但医生使用说服的做法存在争议。我们试图研究老年女性的观点。
我们对来自巴尔的摩大都市区的 20 名社区居住的老年女性进行了半结构式访谈。我们询问参与者是否认为医生试图说服患者在道德上是合适的,并探讨了他们的理由。我们探讨了常用的说服技巧和两个示例决策情境-停止乳房 X 光检查和多次摔倒后搬离自己的家。我们使用定性主题分析对转录本进行编码,并将结果总结为主要主题。
我们发现对说服的道德适当性存在不同看法(主题 1);支持说服的人是出于对患者健康潜在利益的考虑,而反对者则认为患者应该是最终的决策者。观点取决于说服技巧(主题 2),其中情感诉求引起了最负面的反应,而使用事实和患者故事则被认为更积极。观点也因决策情境而异(主题 3),其中伤害的严重程度和确定性越高,参与者就越容易接受说服。参与者提出了替代说服的沟通方法(主题 4),强调对患者的尊重。
我们的研究结果表明,说服的类型和决策情境是围绕使用说服进行的道德辩论中的重要考虑因素。将说服的使用限制在高风险决策中,并使用事实和患者故事而不是情感诉求,可能更能被接受。