ReviewJournal of medical ethics1998
The scope for the involvement of patients in their consultations with health professionals: rights, responsibilities and preferences of patients.
Review in Journal of medical ethics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Premature consent and patient duties.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Clinical ethics and patient advocacy: the power of communication in health care.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2014Article
- Do patients have duties?Journal of medical ethics · 2007Article
- Are patients morally responsible for their errors?Journal of medical ethics · 2006Review
- High need patients receiving targeted entitlements: what responsibilities do they have in primary health care?Journal of medical ethics · 2005Review
- Power issues in the doctor-patient relationship.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2001Article
- Towards a new understanding of provider continuity.Annals of family medicineArticle
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
The degree and nature of patient involvement in consultations with health professionals influences problem and needs recognition and management, and public accountability. This paper suggests a framework for understanding the scope for patient involvement in such consultations. Patients are defined as co-producers of formal health services, whose potential for involvement in consultations depends on their personal rights, responsibilities and preferences. Patients' rights in consultations are poorly defined and, in the National Health Service (NHS), not legally enforceable. The responsibilities of patients are also undefined. I suggest that these are not to deny, of their own volition, the rights of others, which in consultations necessitate mutuality of involvement through information-exchange and shared decision-making. Preferences should be met insofar as they do not militate against responsibilities and rights.
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.