ArticleSociology of health & illness2018
Generating the perception of choice: the remarkable malleability of option-listing.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- How doctors present treatment options in advanced lung cancer consultations: a conversation analytic study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Are HIV Treatment Clients Offered a Choice of Differentiated Service Delivery Models? Evidence from Malawi, South Africa, and Zambia.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Communicating treatment options to older patients with advanced kidney disease: a conversation analysis study.BMC nephrology · 2024Observational
- Patient values in patient-provider communication about participation in early phase clinical cancer trials: a qualitative analysis before and after implementation of an online value clarification tool intervention.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- 'It feels like my metabolism has shut down'. Negotiating interactional roles and epistemic positions in a primary care consultation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Decision-making ethics in regards to life-sustaining interventions: when physicians refer to what other patients decide.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The normative view that patients should be offered more choice both within and beyond the UK's National Health Service (NHS) has been increasingly endorsed. However, there is very little research on whether - and how - this is enacted in practice. Based on 223 recordings of neurology outpatient consultations and participants' subsequent self-reports, this article shows that 'option-listing' is a key practice for generating the perception of choice. The evidence is two-fold: first, we show that neurologists and patients overwhelmingly reported that choice was offered in those consultations where option-listing was used; second, we demonstrate how option-listing can be seen, in the interaction itself, to create a moment of choice for the patient. Surprisingly, however, we found that even when the patient resisted making the choice or the neurologist adapted the practice of option-listing in ways that sought acceptance of the neurologist's own recommendation, participants still agreed that a choice had been offered. There was only one exception: despite the use of option-listing, the patient reported having no choice, whereas the neurologist reported having offered a choice. We explore this deviant case in order to shed light on the limits of option-listing as a mechanism for generating the perception of choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.