Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27179973›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2016

Patient education as empowerment and self-rebiasing.

Fabrice Jotterand, Antonio Amodio, Bernice S Elger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Modeling European health systems: an ideal chain of services.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Canadian Urological Association best practice report: Bone health in prostate cancer.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Implementation of a targeted HPV educational program in a population with HIV.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2019
    Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Fabrice JotterandDepartment of Health Care Ethics, Regis University, Denver, CO, USA. fjotterand@regis.edu.
Antonio AmodioItalian Ministry of Mental Health, Rome, Italy.
Bernice S ElgerInstitute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fiduciary nature of the patient-physician relationship requires clinicians to act in the best interest of their patients. Patients are vulnerable due to their health status and lack of medical knowledge, which makes them dependent on the clinicians' expertise. Competent patients, however, may reject the recommendations of their physician, either refusing beneficial medical interventions or procedures based on their personal views that do not match the perceived medical indication. In some instances, the patients' refusal may jeopardize their health or life but also compromise the clinician's moral responsibility to promote the patient's best interests. In other words, health professionals have to deal with patients whose behavior and healthcare decisions seem counterproductive for their health, or even deteriorate it, because of lack of knowledge, bad habits or bias without being the patients' free voluntary choice. The moral dilemma centers on issues surrounding the limits of the patient's autonomy (rights) and the clinician's role to promote the well-being of the patient (duties). In this paper we argue that (1) the use of manipulative strategies, albeit considered beneficent, defeats the purpose of patient education and therefore should be rejected; and (2) the appropriate strategy is to empower patients through patient education which enhances their autonomy and encourages them to become full healthcare partners as opposed to objects of clinical intervention or entities whose values or attitudes need to be shaped and changed through education. First, we provide a working definition of the concept of patient education and a brief historical overview of its origin. Second, we examine the nature of the patient-physician relationship in order to delineate its boundaries, essential for understanding the role of education in the clinical context. Third, we argue that patient education should promote self-rebiasing, enhance autonomy, and empower patients to determine their therapeutic goals. Finally, we develop a moral framework for patient education.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationDecision MakingHumansPersonal AutonomyPhysician-Patient RelationsPower, PsychologicalPatient educationPatient–physician relationshipPersuasionSelf-rebiasing

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.