Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28277056›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2017

Patient participation in decision-making about cardiovascular preventive drugs - resistance as agency.

Josabeth Hultberg, Carl Edvard Rudebeck

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Psychiatric service staff perceptions of implementing a shared decision-making tool: a process evaluation study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2018
    Article
  8. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Josabeth Hultberga Primary Care and Department of Medical and Health Sciences , Linköping University , Norrköping , Sweden.
Carl Edvard Rudebeckb Research Unit, Kalmar County Council, Sweden, Department of Community Medicine , Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø , Tromsø , Norway.
Landstinget i Kalmar län · SELinköping University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of the study was to describe and explore patient agency through resistance in decision-making about cardiovascular preventive drugs in primary care.

designSix general practitioners from the southeast of Sweden audiorecorded 80 consultations. From these, 28 consultations with proposals from GPs for cardiovascular preventive drug treatments were chosen for theme-oriented discourse analysis.

resultsThe study shows how patients participate in decision-making about cardiovascular preventive drug treatments through resistance in response to treatment proposals. Passive modes of resistance were withheld responses and minimal unmarked acknowledgements. Active modes were to ask questions, contest the address of an inclusive we, present an identity as a non-drugtaker, disclose non-adherence to drug treatments, and to present counterproposals. The active forms were also found in anticipation to treatment proposals from the GPs. Patients and GPs sometimes displayed mutual renouncement of responsibility for decision-making. The decision-making process appeared to expand both beyond a particular phase in the consultations and beyond the single consultation.

conclusionsThe recognition of active and passive resistance from patients as one way of exerting agency may prove valuable when working for patient participation in clinical practice, education and research about patient-doctor communication about cardiovascular preventive medication. We propose particular attentiveness to patient agency through anticipatory resistance, patients' disclosures of non-adherence and presentations of themselves as non-drugtakers. The expansion of the decision-making process beyond single encounters points to the importance of continuity of care. KEY POINTS Guidelines recommend shared decision-making about cardiovascular preventive treatment. We need an understanding of how this is accomplished in actual consultations.This paper describes how patient agency in decision-making is displayed through different forms of resistance to treatment proposals. •The decision-making process expands beyond particular phases in consultations and beyond single encounters, implying the importance of continuity of care. •Attentiveness to patient participation through resistance in treatment negotiations is warranted in clinical practice, research and education about prescribing communication.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision MakingPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health CareAdultCardiovascular AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesFamily PracticeFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationSwedenCardiovascular Agentscardiovascular diseasescardiovascular drugsCommunicationgeneral practicepreventionqualitative researchshared decision-makingSweden

Identifiers

PMID28277056
PMCPMC5592349
OpenAlexW2616397834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.