Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20838895›Full record

ArticleJournal of religion and health2012

Negotiating religious beliefs in a medical setting.

Marisa Cordella

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of religion and health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marisa CordellaSchool of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts Monash University, Building 11, Clayton Campus, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia. Marisa.cordella@arts.monash.edu.au
Monash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This manuscript studies in detail, following a discourse analytical approach, medical consultations in which a patient's religious belief does not allow blood transfusion to be administered. The patient is a young Jehovah's Witness suffering myeloid leukaemia who is being treated in a Catholic cancer hospital where the practice of blood transfusion forms part of the standard protocol to treat the disease. The consultations under analysis take place in a Chilean cancer clinic where mainly the oncologist and a Jehovah's Witness Representative (JWR) present discuss and negotiate expert information on the substitute methods to be used. The exchange dynamics of the consultations differ from the usual visits where the medical knowledge and expertise is primarily in the hands of the medical practitioner. In these encounters, the JWR shares vital information with the oncologist providing the basis of the treatment to be used. This shifting of the balance of power-which could have been a cause of tension in the visit and a contributing factor in the disruption of communication-has instead brought light to the encounter where the negotiated treatment has been achieved with relative ease. The patient's future is in the hands of the oncologist and the JWR, and their successful negotiation of treatment has made it possible to cater for the particular needs of a JW patient. Sharing different medical practices has not been an obstacle, but an opportunity to find out ways to deliver equity access and well-informed practices to a non-conventional patient.

Indexed as

Jehovah's WitnessesNegotiatingPhysician-Patient RelationsReligion and MedicineBlood TransfusionCatholicismChileHospitals, ReligiousHumansLeukemia, MyeloidMalePower, PsychologicalProxyTreatment Refusal

Identifiers

PMID20838895
OpenAlexW2020854696

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.