Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37905523›Full record

ArticleJournal of health and social behavior2024

High-Stakes Treatment Negotiations Gone Awry: The Importance of Interactions for Understanding Treatment Advocacy and Patient Resistance.

Alexandra Tate, Karen Lutfey Spencer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health and social behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Alexandra TateUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2801-5920
Karen Lutfey SpencerUniversity of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2975-8125

Funding

Resources and DisseminationP30AG066619 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Vincent Joseph Hotz, DAVID O MELTZER · 2020 to 2026
$6.8M
NIA NIH HHS L30 AG069299NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066619
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Doctors (and sociologists) have a long history of struggling to understand why patients seek medical help yet resist treatment recommendations. Explanations for resistance have pointed to macrostructural changes, such as the rise of the engaged patient or decline of physician authority. Rather than assuming that concepts such as resistance, authority, or engagement are exogenous phenomena transmitted via conversational conduits, we examine how they are dynamically co-constituted interactionally. Using conversation analysis to analyze a videotaped interaction of an oncology patient resisting the treatment recommendation even though she might die without treatment, we show how sustained resistance manifests in and through her doctor's actions. This paradox, in which the doctor can both recommend life-prolonging care and condition resistance to it, has broad relevance beyond cancer treatment; it also can help us to understand other doctor-patient decisional conflicts, for instance, medication nonadherence, delaying emergent care, and vaccine refusal.

Indexed as

NegotiatingPhysician-Patient RelationsCommunicationDecision MakingFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient AdvocacyTreatment Refusalconversation analysisdecision-makingdoctor–patient interactiondoctor–patient relationshiponcology

Identifiers

PMID37905523
PMCPMC11058117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.