1932

Abstract

The physician–patient relationship has evolved significantly in the past century. Physician authority has been reduced while patients have been empowered. This review focuses on face-to-face clinical care and argues that current physician–patient relations range from partnerships between social actors who each play critical roles in negotiating care to a more adversarial duel in which both participants advocate for goals that are not necessarily shared. While the former is the hope of increased patient involvement, the latter is increasingly common. Through our discussion of existing studies, we document that while high levels of patient participation are beneficial to treatment outcomes, this engagement also has a dark side that threatens treatment outcomes. We discuss some communication resources patients use that affect treatment outcomes, exemplify how patient engagement affects physician communication, and discuss some strategies that current research finds effective for communicating about treatment with today's engaged patients.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-054400
2023-01-17
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/9/1/annurev-linguistics-030521-054400.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-054400&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbott A. 1988. The System of Professions Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  2. Akerkar SM, Bichile LS. 2004. Doctor patient relationship: changing dynamics in the information age. J. Postgrad. Med. 50:120–22
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barton J, Dew K, Dowell A, Sheridan N, Kenealy T et al. 2016. Patient resistance as a resource: candidate obstacles in diabetes consultations. Sociol. Health Illn. 38:1151–66
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergen C, McCabe R. 2021. Negative stance towards treatment in psychosocial assessments: the role of personalised recommendations in promoting acceptance. Soc. Sci. Med. 290:114082
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergen C, Stivers T. 2013. Patient disclosure of medical misdeeds. J. Health Soc. Behav. 54:221–40
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. 2008. The Triple Aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff. 27:759–69
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolden GB, Angell B, Hepburn A. 2019. How clients solicit medication changes in psychiatry. Sociol. Health Illn. 41:411–26
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyd EA, Heritage J 2006. Taking the patient's medical history: questioning during comprehensive history-taking. Communication in Medical Care: Interactions Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients J Heritage, D Maynard 151–84 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyer CA, Lutfey K. 2010. Examining critical health policy issues within and beyond the clinical encounter: patient-provider relationships and help-seeking behaviors. J. Health Soc. Behav. 51:S80–93
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown RF, Butow PN, Butt DG, Moore AR, Tattersall MHN. 2004. Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials. Soc. Sci. Med. 58:379–90
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bruner JS, Jolly A, Sylva K. 1976. Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution New York: Basic Books
  12. Byrne PS, Long BEL. 1976. Doctors Talking to Patients: A Study of the Verbal Behaviours of Doctors in the Consultation Exeter, UK: R. Coll. Gen. Pract.
  13. Carrico JA, Mahoney K, Raymond K, Mims L, Smith PC et al. 2018. The association of patient satisfaction-based incentives with primary care physician opioid prescribing. J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 31:941–43
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chappell P, Toerien M, Jackson C, Reuber M 2018. Following the patient's orders? Recommending versus offering choice in neurology outpatient consultations. Soc. Sci. Med. 205:8–16
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. 1999. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc. Sci. Med. 49:651–61
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cicolello K, Anandarajah G. 2019. Multiple stakeholders' perspectives regarding barriers to hospice enrollment in diverse patient populations: a qualitative study. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 57:869–79
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Comm. Hosp. Care, Inst. Patient Fam.-Cent. Care. 2012. Patient- and family-centered care and the pediatrician's role. Pediatrics 129:394–404
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cortez D, Maynard DW, Campbell TC. 2019. Creating space to discuss end-of-life issues in cancer care. Patient Educ. Couns. 102:216–22
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Csikai EL, Martin SS. 2010. Bereaved hospice caregivers' views of the transition to hospice. Soc. Work Health Care 49:387–400
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cutler DM. 2004. Your Money or Your Life: Strong Medicine for America's Health Care System Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  21. Emanuel EJ, Pearson SD. 2012. Physician autonomy and health care reform. JAMA 307:367–68
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Frosch DL, May SG, Rendle KA, Tietbohl C, Elwyn G 2012. Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled “difficult” among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Aff. 31:1030–38
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gill VT. 2019.. ‘ Breast cancer won't kill ya in the breast’: broaching a rationale for chemotherapy during the surgical consultation for early-stage breast cancer. Patient Educ. Couns. 102:207–15
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gill VT, Maynard DW 2006. Explaining illness: patients' proposals and physicians' responses. Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients J Heritage, DW Maynard 115–50 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Glaser B, Strauss A. 1965. Awareness of Dying Chicago: Adline
  26. Halpern SA. 2004. Medical authority and the culture of rights. J. Health Politics Policy Law 29:835–52
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hay CM, Lefkowits C, Crowley-Makota M, Bakitas MA, Clark LH et al. 2017. Strategies for introducing outpatient specialty palliative care in gynecologic oncology. J. Oncol. Pract. 13:e712–20
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Helft PR. 2005. Necessary collusion: prognostic communication with advanced cancer patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 23:3146–50
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Heritage J, McArthur A. 2019. The diagnostic moment: a study in US primary care. Soc. Sci. Med. 228:262–71
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Heritage J, Raymond G. 2005. The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Soc. Psychol. Q. 68:15–38
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Heritage J, Robinson JD, Elliott MN, Beckett M, Wilkes M. 2007. Reducing patients' unmet concerns in primary care: the difference one word can make. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 22:1429–33
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Heritage J, Stivers T. 1999. Online commentary in acute medical visits: a method of shaping patient expectations. Soc. Sci. Med. 49:1501–17
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jutel AG. 2014. Putting a Name to It: Diagnosis in Contemporary Society Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
  34. Karasz A, Dowrick C, Byng R, Buszewicz M, Ferri L et al. 2012. What we talk about when we talk about depression: doctor-patient conversations and treatment decision outcomes. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 62:e55–63
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaufman SR. 2015. Ordinary Medicine Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  36. Koenig CJ. 2011. Patient resistance as agency in treatment decisions. Soc. Sci. Med. 72:1105–14
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Korsch BM, Negrete VF. 1972. Doctor-patient communication. Sci. Am. 227:66–74
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kravitz RL, Epstein RM, Feldman MD, Franz CE, Azari R et al. 2005. Influence of patients' requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 293:1995–2002
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kushida S, Yamakawa Y. 2015. Fitting proposals to their sequential environment: a comparison of turn designs for proposing treatment in ongoing outpatient psychiatric consultations in Japan. Sociol. Health Illn. 37:522–44
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kushida S, Yamakawa Y 2020. Clients’ practices for resisting treatment recommendations in Japanese outpatient psychiatry. Joint Decision Making in Mental Health C Lindholm, M Stevanovic, E Weiste 115–40 London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Land V, Parry R, Pino M, Jenkins L, Featers L, Faull C. 2019. Addressing possible problems with patients’ expectations, plans and decisions for the future: one strategy used by experienced clinicians in advance care planning conversations. Patient Educ. Couns. 102:670–79
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Légaré F, Thompson-Leduc P. 2014. Twelve myths about shared decision making. Patient Educ. Couns. 96:281–86
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted R. 2005. Not all patients want to participate in decision making: a national study of public preferences. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 20:531–35
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Light DW 2010. Health-care professions, markets, and countervailing powers. Handbook of Medical Sociology CE Bird, P Conrad, AM Fremont, S Timmermans 270–89 Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lindström A, Weatherall A. 2015. Orientations to epistemics and deontics in treatment discussions. J. Pragmat. 78:39–53
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lupton D. 1997. Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter. Soc. Sci. Med. 45:373–81
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lutfey K, Maynard DW. 1998. Bad news in oncology: how physician and patient talk about death and dying without using those words. Soc. Psychol. Q. 61:321–41
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Mangione-Smith R, Elliott MN, Stivers T, McDonald LL, Heritage J. 2006. Ruling out the need for antibiotics: Are we sending the right message?. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 160:945–52
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Mangione-Smith R, Stivers T, Elliott MN, McDonald L, Heritage J. 2003. The relationship between online commentary use and prevention of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing by pediatricians. Soc. Sci. Med. 56:313–20
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Mangione-Smith R, Zhou C, Robinson JD, Taylor JA, Elliott MN, Heritage J. 2015. Communication practices and antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections in children. Ann. Fam. Med. 13:221–27
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Maynard DW 1989. Notes on the delivery and reception of diagnostic news regarding mental disabilities. The Interactional Order: New Directions in the Study of Social Order DT Helm, WT Anderson, AJ Meehan, AW Rawls 54–67 New York: Irvington
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Maynard DW, Cortez D, Campbell TC 2016.. ‘ End of life’ conversations, appreciation sequences, and the interaction order in cancer clinics. Patient Educ. Couns. 99:92–100
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Maynard DW, Turowetz J. 2017. Doing testing: how concrete competence can facilitate or inhibit performances of children with autism spectrum disorder. Qual. Sociol. 40:467–91
    [Google Scholar]
  54. McArthur A. 2019. Pain and the collision of expertise in primary care physical exams. Discourse Stud. 21:522–39
    [Google Scholar]
  55. McCabe R. 2021. When patients and clinician (dis)agree about the nature of the problem: the role of displays of shared understanding in acceptance of treatment. Soc. Sci. Med. 290:114208
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Mead N, Bower P. 2000. Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc. Sci. Med. 51:1087–110
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Mechta Nielsen T, Frøjk Juhl M, Feldt-Rasmussen B, Thomsen T 2018. Adherence to medication in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of qualitative research. Clin. Kidney J. 11:513–27
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Mehta SJ. 2015. Patient satisfaction reporting and its implications for patient care. AMA J. Ethics 17:616–21
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Menchik DA, Jin L 2014. When do doctors follow patients’ orders? Organizational mechanisms of physician influence. Soc. Sci. Res. 48:171–84
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Nielsen SB 2019. Dealing with explicit patient demands for antibiotics in a clinical setting. Risking Antimicrobial Resistance: A Collection of One-Health Studies of Antibiotics and Its Social and Health Consequences CS Jensen, SB Nielsen, L Fynbo 25–40 London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Opel DJ, Heritage J, Taylor JA, Mangione-Smith R, Salas HS et al. 2013. The architecture of provider-parent vaccine discussions at health supervision visits. Pediatrics 132:1037–46
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Ostermann AC. 2021. Women's (limited) agency over their sexual bodies: contesting contraceptive recommendations in Brazil. Soc. Sci. Med. 290:114276
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Parsons T. 1937. The Structure of Social Action New York: McGraw-Hill
  64. Peräkylä A. 1998. Authority and accountability: the delivery of diagnosis in primary health care. Soc. Psychol. Q. 61:301–20
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pilnick A, Coleman T. 2003.. “ I'll give up smoking when you get me better”: patients' resistance to attempts to problematise smoking in general practice (GP) consultations. Soc. Sci. Med. 57:135–45
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pino M, Parry R. 2019. How and when do patients request life-expectancy estimates? Evidence from hospice medical consultations and insights for practice. Patient Educ. Couns. 102:223–37
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Pino M, Parry R, Land V, Faull C, Feathers L, Seymour J. 2016. Engaging terminally ill patients in end of life talk: how experienced palliative medicine doctors navigate the dilemma of promoting discussions about dying. PLOS ONE 11:e0156174
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Robinson JD. 2003. An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients' participation. Health Commun. 15:27–57
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Robinson JD, Tate A, Heritage J 2016. Agenda-setting revisited: When and how do primary-care physicians solicit patients' additional concerns?. Patient Educ. Couns. 99:718–23
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Roter D. 1977. Patient participation in the patient-provider interaction: the effects of patient question asking on the quality of interaction, satisfaction and compliance. Health Educ. Monogr. 5:281–315
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Russell D, Luth EA, Dawon B, Lizeyka J, Creber RM. 2020. On board: interdisciplinary team member perspectives of how patients with heart failure and their families navigate hospice care. J. Hosp. Palliat. Nurs. 22:351–58
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Schoenthaler A, Rosenthal DM, Butler M, Jacobowitz L. 2018. Medication adherence improvement similar for shared decision-making preference or longer patient-provider relationship. J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 31:752–60
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Shim JK, Russ AJ, Kaufman SR. 2008. Late-life cardiac interventions and the treatment imperative. PLOS Med. 5:e7
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Singh S, Cortez D, Maynard D, Cleary JF, DuBenske L, Campbell TC. 2017. Characterizing the nature of scan results discussions: insights into why patients misunderstand their prognosis. J. Oncol. Pract. 13:e231–39
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Starr P. 1982. The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry New York: Basic Books
  76. Stevanovic M, Peräkylä A. 2012. Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose, and decide. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 45:297–321
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Stevenson FA, Leydon-Hudson G, Murray E, Seguin M, Barnes R 2021. Patients’ use of the internet to negotiate about treatment. Soc. Sci. Med. 290:114262
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Stivers T. 2002. Participating in decisions about treatment: overt parent pressure for antibiotic medication in pediatric encounters. Soc. Sci. Med. 54:1111–30
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Stivers T. 2005a. Non-antibiotic treatment recommendations: delivery formats and implications for parent resistance. Soc. Sci. Med. 60:949–64
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Stivers T. 2005b. Parent resistance to physicians’ treatment recommendations: one resource for initiating a negotiation of the treatment decision. Health Commun. 18:41–74
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Stivers T. 2007. Prescribing Under Pressure: Parent-Physician Conversations and Antibiotics New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  82. Stivers T. 2021. Managing patient pressure to prescribe antibiotics in the clinic. Pediatr. Drugs 23:437–43
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Stivers T, Barnes RK, eds. 2018. Treatment recommendation actions, contingencies and responses. Health Commun 33:11)
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Stivers T, Heritage J, Barnes RK, McCabe R, Thompson L, Toerien M. 2018. Treatment recommendations as actions. Health Commun. 33:1335–44
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Stivers T, Mangione-Smith R, Elliott MN, McDonald L, Heritage J. 2003. Why do physicians think parents expect antibiotics? What parents report versus what physicians perceive. J. Fam. Pract. 52:140–48
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Stivers T, Timmermans S. 2016. Negotiating the diagnostic uncertainty of genomic test results. Soc. Psychol. Q. 79:199–221
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Stivers T, Timmermans S. 2020. Medical authority under siege: how clinicians transform patient resistance into acceptance. J. Health Soc. Behav. 61:60–78
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Stivers T, Timmermans S. 2021. Arriving at no: patient pressure to prescribe antibiotics and physicians’ responses. Soc. Sci. Med. 290:114007
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Tate A. 2018. Treatment recommendations in oncology visits: implications for patient agency and physician authority. Health Commun. 34:1597–607
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Tate A. 2019. Matter over mind: how mental health symptom presentations shape diagnostic outcomes. Health 24:755–72
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Tate A. 2020. Invoking death: how oncologists discuss a deadly outcome. Soc. Sci. Med. 246:112672
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Tate A, Rimel BJ. 2020. The duality of option-listing in cancer care. Patient Educ. Couns. 103:71–76
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Thompson L, McCabe R. 2018. How psychiatrists recommend treatment and its relationship with patient uptake. Health Commun. 33:1345–54
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Timmermans S. 1994. Dying of awareness: the theory of awareness contexts revisited. Sociol. Health Illn. 16:322–39
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Timmermans S. 2020. The engaged patient: the relevance of patient-physician communication for twenty-first century health. J. Health Soc. Behav. 61:259–73
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Timmermans S, Mauck A. 2005. The promises and pitfalls of evidence-based medicine. Health Aff. 24:18–28
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Timmermans S, Oh H. 2010. The continued social transformation of the medical profession. J. Health Soc. Behav. 51:S94–106
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Timmermans S, Stivers T, Cox K, McArthur A. 2022. Patients in pain: how treatment plan formulations shape patient response Work. Pap., Univ. Calif., Los Angeles
  99. Toerien M, Shaw R, Duncan R, Reuber M. 2011. Offering patients choices: a pilot study of interactions in the seizure clinic. Epilepsy Behav. 20:312–20
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Turowetz J, Maynard DW. 2016. Category attribution as a device for diagnosis: fitting children to the autism spectrum. Sociol. Health Illn. 38:610–26
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC. 2007. Untangling the web—the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. Patient Educ. Couns. 68:218–24
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Waldrop DP, Meeker MA. 2012. Hospice decision making: Diagnosis makes a difference. Gerontologist 52:686–97
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Wang NC. 2020. Understanding antibiotic overprescribing in China: a conversation analysis approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 262:113251
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Wang NC, Liu Y. 2021. Going shopping or consulting in medical visits: caregivers’ roles in pediatric antibiotic prescribing in China. Soc. Sci. Med. 290:114075
    [Google Scholar]
  105. White AEC. 2020. When and how do surgeons initiate noticings of additional concerns?. Soc. Sci. Med. 244:112320
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Whooley O. 2013. Knowledge in the Time of Cholera: The Struggle over American Medicine in the Nineteenth Century Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-054400
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error