Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11874258›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2001

Power issues in the doctor-patient relationship.

F Goodyear-Smith, S Buetow

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 10 Limits to Forgiveness in Health Care.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

F Goodyear-SmithDivision of General Practice & Primary, Health Care, Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences, University of Auckland, New Zealand. f.goodyear-smith@auckland.ac.nz
S Buetow

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Power is an inescapable aspect of all social relationships, and inherently is neither good nor evil. Doctors need power to fulfil their professional obligations to multiple constituencies including patients, the community and themselves. Patients need power to formulate their values, articulate and achieve health needs, and fulfil their responsibilities. However, both parties can use or misuse power. The ethical effectiveness of a health system is maximised by empowering doctors and patients to develop 'adult-adult' rather than 'adult-child' relationships that respect and enable autonomy, accountability, fidelity and humanity. Even in adult-adult relationships, conflicts and complexities arise. Lack of concordance between doctors and patients can encourage paternalism but may be best resolved through negotiated care. A further area of conflict involves the 'double agency' of doctors for both patients and the community. Empowerment of all players is not always possible but is most likely where each party considers and acknowledges power issues.

Indexed as

Patient-Centered CarePhysician-Patient RelationsPower, PsychologicalAdultEthicsHumansPaternalismPatient ParticipationProfessional AutonomySocial ResponsibilityProfessional Patient Relationship

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.