Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27882864›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being2016

Patient participation in palliative care decisions: An ethnographic discourse analysis.

Emmanuelle Bélanger, Charo Rodríguez, Danielle Groleau, France Légaré, Mary Ellen MacDonald, Robert Marchand

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Cancer Patients' Experiences of Burden when Involved in Treatment Decision Making.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Physicians' perceptions of patient participation and the involvement of family caregivers in the palliative care pathway.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emmanuelle BélangerDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Public Health Research Institute (IRSPUM), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada; e.belanger@umontreal.ca.
Charo RodríguezDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Danielle GroleauDepartment of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
France LégaréDepartment of Emergency and Family Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
Mary Ellen MacDonaldDivision of Oral Health and Society, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Robert MarchandDepartment of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
McGill University · CAUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The participation of patients in making decisions about their care is especially important towards the end of life because palliative care decisions involve extensive uncertainty and are heavily influenced by personal values. Yet, there is a scarcity of studies directly observing clinical interactions between palliative patients and their health care providers. In this study, we aimed to understand how patient participation in palliative care decisions is constructed through discourse in a community hospital-based palliative care team. This qualitative study combined ethnographic observations of a palliative care team with discourse analysis. Eighteen palliative care patients with cancer diagnoses, six family physicians, and two nurses were involved in the study. Multiple interactions were observed between each patient and health care providers over the course of 1 year, for a total of 101 consultations, 24 of which were audio-recorded. The analysis consisted in looking for the interpretive repertoires (i.e., familiar lines of argument used to justify actions) that were used to justify patient participation in decision-making during clinical interactions, as well as exploring their implications for decision roles and end-of-life care. Patients and their health care providers seldom addressed their decision-making roles explicitly. Rather, they constructed patient participation in palliative care decisions in a covert manner. Four interpretive repertoires were used to justify patient participation: (1) exposing uncertainty, (2) co-constructing patient preferences, (3) affirming patient autonomy, and finally (4) upholding the authority of health care providers. The results demonstrate how patients and health care providers used these arguments to negotiate their respective roles in decision-making. In conclusion, patients and health care providers used a variety of interpretive repertoires to covertly negotiate their roles in decision-making, and to legitimize decisions that shaped patients' dying trajectories. Discourse analysis encourages awareness of the role of language in either promoting or hindering patient participation in decision-making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPalliative CarePatient ParticipationProfessional-Patient RelationsTerminal CareAgedAged, 80 and overAnthropology, CulturalAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursesPatient Comfortdecision-makingdiscourse analysisPalliative carepatient participationqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID27882864
PMCPMC5122231
OpenAlexW2554574174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.