Literature DB >> 20382463

The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives.

Nicola Mendick1, Bridget Young2, Christopher Holcombe1, Peter Salmon3.   

Abstract

Doctors are widely encouraged to share decision-making with patients. However, the assumption that responsibility for decisions is an objective quantity that can be apportioned between doctors and patients is problematic. We studied treatment decisions from three perspectives simultaneously - observing consultations and exploring patients' and doctors' perspectives on these - to understand how decision-making that we observed related to participants' subjective experience of responsibility. We audio-recorded post-operative consultations in which 20 patients who had undergone initial surgery for breast cancer discussed further treatment with one of eight surgeons in a general hospital serving a socioeconomically diverse urban population in England. We separately interviewed each patient and their surgeon within seven days of consultation to explore their perspectives on decisions that had been made. Qualitative analysis distinguished procedurally different types of decision-making and explored surgeons' and patients' perspectives on each. Surgeons made most decisions for patients, and only explicitly offered choices where treatment options were clinically equivocal. Procedurally, therefore, shared decision-making was absent and surgeons might be regarded as having neglected patients' autonomy. Nevertheless, patients generally felt ownership of decisions that surgeons made for them because surgeons provided justifying reasons and because patients knew that they could refuse. Conversely, faced with choice, patients generally lacked trust in their own decisions and usually sought surgeons' guidance. Therefore, from the perspective of ethical frameworks that conceptualise patient autonomy as relational and subjective, the surgeons were protecting patient autonomy. Studying subjective as well as procedural elements of decision-making can provide a broader perspective from which to evaluate practitioners' decision-making behaviour. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20382463     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  18 in total

1.  A qualitative study of rural women's views for the treatment of early breast cancer.

Authors:  Eli Ristevski; Melanie Regan; David Birks; Nicole Steers; Anny Byrne
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Sacramento area breast cancer epidemiology study: use of postmastectomy breast reconstruction along the rural-to-urban continuum.

Authors:  Warren H Tseng; Thomas R Stevenson; Robert J Canter; Steven L Chen; Vijay P Khatri; Richard J Bold; Steve R Martinez
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Shared mind: communication, decision making, and autonomy in serious illness.

Authors:  Ronald M Epstein; Richard L Street
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Telling "everything" but not "too much": the surgeon's dilemma in consultations about breast cancer.

Authors:  Nicola Mendick; Bridget Young; Christopher Holcombe; Peter Salmon
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Return to Work of Cancer Survivors: Predicting Healthcare Professionals' Assumed Role Responsibility.

Authors:  Dana Yagil; Nofar Eshed-Lavi; Rafi Carel; Miri Cohen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2019-06

6.  Interpersonal influences and attitudes about adjuvant therapy treatment decisions among non-metastatic breast cancer patients: an examination of differences by age and race/ethnicity in the BQUAL study.

Authors:  Rachel C Shelton; Grace Clarke Hillyer; Dawn L Hershman; Nicole Leoce; Dana H Bovbjerg; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Lawrence H Kushi; Lois Lamerato; S David Nathanson; Christine B Ambrosone; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-12-22       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Shared decision-making: enhancing the clinical relevance.

Authors:  Vikki A Entwistle; Alan Cribb; Ian S Watt
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Communication about children's clinical trials as observed and experienced: qualitative study of parents and practitioners.

Authors:  Valerie Shilling; Paula R Williamson; Helen Hickey; Emma Sowden; Michael W Beresford; Rosalind L Smyth; Bridget Young
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  What are parents' perspectives on psychological empowerment in the MMR vaccination decision? A focus group study.

Authors:  Marta Fadda; Elisa Galimberti; Valter Carraro; Peter J Schulz
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Women and Partners' Information Need, Emotional Adjustment, and Breast Reconstruction Decision-Making Before Mastectomy.

Authors:  Kristopher Lamore; Cécile Flahault; Aurélie Untas
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 0.947

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.