ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Communicative Rationality and Clinical Decision-Making: A Habermasian Perspective on the Doctor-Patient Relationship.
Review in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical encounters are where biomedical knowledge, institutional norms, and patients' lived experiences meet. Yet, modern healthcare structures these encounters through documentation, performance measures, and digital tools. These systems prioritise efficiency and measurable outcomes, often creating barriers to authentic dialogue between clinicians and patients. This tension raises philosophical questions about what conditions are necessary for meaningful clinical interactions. This article analyses the doctor-patient relationship using Jürgen Habermas' theory of communicative action. It argues that the key dynamic in clinical consultation is the negotiation of validity claims: truth (biomedical facts), normative rightness (institutional obligations), and sincerity (subjective experience). On this basis, the article proposes a conceptual model that characterises consultation as the interaction among three domains - biomedical facts, institutional norms, and patients' lived experience - summarised as 'Facts, Norms, and Lives.' The analysis studies how modern healthcare pressures shift clinical communication from dialogue aimed at mutual understanding to interaction driven by instrumental goals. The article argues that communicative methods - such as narrative competence and collaborative decision-making - not only restore deliberative legitimacy in clinical encounters, but additionally reinforce the normative foundations of medical practice by conceptualising the consultation as a communicative structure.
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.