Drawing on conversation analyses of oncology consultations collected in Italy, the article examines the communication practices used to recommend treatments. We found that the oncologist formulates the treatment recommendation (TR) for high- risk patients in terms of a ‘mandatory’ choice and for low-risk patients as an ‘optional’ type of decision. In the first case the doctor presses to reach a decision during the visit while in the second case leaves the decision open-ended. Results show that high-risk patients have less time to decide, are pressured towards choosing an option, but have more opportunities for involvement in TR during the visit. Low- risk patients instead have more time and autonomy to make a choice, but they are also less involved in the decision-making in the visit time. Moreover, we document that TR is organised through sequential activities in which the oncologist informs the patient of alternative therapeutic options while at the same time building a case for the kind of treatment she/he believes to be best for the patient’s health. We suggest that in this field risk plays a key role in decision-making which should be better understood with further studies and taken into account in the debate on shared decision-making and patient-centred communication

Managing risk and patient involvement in choosing treatment for cancer. An analysis of two communication practices / Alby, Francesca; Fatigante, Marilena; Zucchermaglio, Cristina. - In: SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS. - ISSN 0141-9889. - STAMPA. - 39:8(2017), pp. 1427-1447. [10.1111/1467-9566.12598]

Managing risk and patient involvement in choosing treatment for cancer. An analysis of two communication practices

ALBY, Francesca;FATIGANTE, Marilena;ZUCCHERMAGLIO, Cristina
2017

Abstract

Drawing on conversation analyses of oncology consultations collected in Italy, the article examines the communication practices used to recommend treatments. We found that the oncologist formulates the treatment recommendation (TR) for high- risk patients in terms of a ‘mandatory’ choice and for low-risk patients as an ‘optional’ type of decision. In the first case the doctor presses to reach a decision during the visit while in the second case leaves the decision open-ended. Results show that high-risk patients have less time to decide, are pressured towards choosing an option, but have more opportunities for involvement in TR during the visit. Low- risk patients instead have more time and autonomy to make a choice, but they are also less involved in the decision-making in the visit time. Moreover, we document that TR is organised through sequential activities in which the oncologist informs the patient of alternative therapeutic options while at the same time building a case for the kind of treatment she/he believes to be best for the patient’s health. We suggest that in this field risk plays a key role in decision-making which should be better understood with further studies and taken into account in the debate on shared decision-making and patient-centred communication
2017
decision-making; treatment recommendation; conversation analysis; doctor-patient communication; oncology; Italy/Italian
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Managing risk and patient involvement in choosing treatment for cancer. An analysis of two communication practices / Alby, Francesca; Fatigante, Marilena; Zucchermaglio, Cristina. - In: SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS. - ISSN 0141-9889. - STAMPA. - 39:8(2017), pp. 1427-1447. [10.1111/1467-9566.12598]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Alby_Managing_2017.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print (versione successiva alla peer review e accettata per la pubblicazione)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 178.4 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
178.4 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/980872
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 7
social impact