ArticleInternational journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being2023
'The way you talk, do I have a choice?' Patient narratives of medication decision-making during hospitalization.
Article in International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 'You're Just Thinking About Going Home': Exploring Person-Centred Medication Communication With Older Patients at Hospital Discharge.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Patient medication management, understanding and adherence during the transition from hospital to outpatient care - a qualitative longitudinal study in polymorbid patients with type 2 diabetes.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Hospitalised patients as stewards of their own antibiotic therapy: a qualitative analysis informing the strategic design of interventions to encourage shared decision-making in tertiary hospital settings in Singapore.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBased on the principle of the autonomy of the patient, shared decision-making (SDM) is the ideal approach in clinical encounters. In SDM, patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) share knowledge and power when faced with the task of making decisions. However, patients are often not involved in the decision-making process. In this study, we explore medication decision-making during hospitalization and how power in the specific patient-HCP relationship is articulated, as analysed by Foucauldian theory.
methodsA qualitative case study, comprising observations of patient-HCP encounters at an internal medicines ward at a university hospital in Norway, followed by semi-structured interviews. The narratives (
resultsThe narratives provide an insight into the patients as persons, their perspectives, including what mattered to them during their hospitalization, especially in relation to medications. Overall, SDM was not observed in this study. Even though all the participants actively tried to keep their autonomous capacity and to resist the HCPs' use of power, they were not able to change the established dynamics. Moreover, they were not allowed an equal voice to those of HCPs and thus not to escape the system's objectification and subjectification of them.
conclusionThere is a need for HCPs to get more familiarized with SDM. The healthcare system and the individual HCP need to make more room for dialogue with the patients about their preferences. A part of this is also how health care systems are structured and scheduled, thus, it is important to empower patients and HCPs alike.
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.