Bioethical communication: shared decision-making and relational empathy

References

• Edwards A, Elwyn G. Shared decision-making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors. Shared decision-making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 2009. p. 3–10.
   Google Scholar
• Weil AR. The patient engagement imperative. Health Aff. 2016;35(4):563–563. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holm S, Davies M. Ethical issues around evidence-based patient choice and shared decision-making. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors. Shared decision-making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 2009. p. 59–64.
   Google Scholar
• Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, et al. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, et al. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. J Gen Int Med. 2005;20(6):531–535. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.04101.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Addelson KP. Moral passages : toward a collectivist moral theory. New York: Routledge; 1994. p. 272.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson J. Discourse and knowledge: defence of a collectivist ethics. New York: Routledge; 1998. p. 164.
   Google Scholar
• Légaré F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff. 2013;32(2):276–284. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cribb A. Involvement, shared decision-making and medicines. London: Centre for Public Policy Research, King’s College; 2011; Available from: https://www.rpharms.com.
   Google Scholar
• Kasper J, Légaré F, Scheibler F, et al. Turning signals into meaning–'shared decision making’ meets communication theory. Health Expect. 2012;15(1):3–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00657.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol. 1997;21(1):3–5. doi: 10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80013-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segal J. Health and the rhetoric of medicine. Carbondale (IL): Southern Illinois Univ. Press; 2005. p. 232.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen R. Empathy: a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Med Health Care Phil. 2008;11(3):325–335. doi: 10.1007/s11019-007-9104-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betsch C, Böhm R, Airhihenbuwa CO, et al. Improving medical decision making and health promotion through culture-sensitive health communication: an agenda for science and practice. Med Decis Making 2016;36(7):811–833. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15600434
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charon R. The patient-physician relationship. narrative medicine: a model for empathy, reflection, profession, and trust. JAMA. 2001;286(15):1897–1902. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.15.1897
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, et al. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(6):943–973. doi: 10.1037/a0017327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christakos G, Wang J-F, Wu J. Stochastic medical reasoning and environmental health exposure. Hackensack (NJ): World Scientific; 2014. p. 365.
   Google Scholar
• Barton E. Speaking for another: ethics-in-interaction in medical encounters. In: Candlin C, Sarangi S, editors. Handbook of communication in organisations and professions. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton; 2011. p. 215–234.
   Google Scholar
• Barnlund DC. A transactional model of communication. In: Akin J, Goldberg A, Myers G, Stewart J, editors. Language behavior a book of readings in communication. Berlin: De Gruyter; 1970. p. 43–61.
   Google Scholar
• Siminoff LA, Step MM. A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions. Health Psychol. 2005;24:S99–S105. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulter A. Paternalism or partnership? patients have grown up-and there’s no going back. BMJ. 1999;319(7212):719–720. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Towle A, Godolphin W. Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ. 1999;319(7212):766–771. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.766
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berlin JA. Rhetoric and reality: writing instruction in American colleges, 1900–1985. Carbondale (IL): SIU Press; 1987. p. 240.
   Google Scholar
• Broome B. Building shared meaning: implications of a relational approach to empathy for teaching intercultural communication. Commun Educ. 1991;40(3):235–249. doi: 10.1080/03634529109378847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon JK, Hale JL. The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Commun Monogr. 1984;51(3):193–214. doi: 10.1080/03637758409390195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Step MM, Rose JH, Albert JM, et al. Modeling patient-centered communication: oncologist relational communication and patient communication involvement in breast cancer adjuvant therapy decision-making. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(3):369–378. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE. Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA. 2004;291(19):2359–2366. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.19.2359
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon JK, Pfau M, Parrott R, et al. Relational communication, satisfaction, compliance-gaining strategies, and compliance in communication between physicians and patients. Commun Monogr. 1987;54(3):307–324. doi: 10.1080/03637758709390235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saba GW, Wong ST, Schillinger D, et al. Shared decision making and the experience of partnership in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(1):54–62. doi: 10.1370/afm.393
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shay LA, Dumenci L, Siminoff LA, et al. Factors associated with patient reports of positive physician relational communication. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(1):96–101. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.04.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–692. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkscey R. Patient decision aids for prenatal genetic testing: probability, embodiment, and problematic integration. Health Commun. 2017;32(5):568–577. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1140500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meloncon LK. Toward a theory of technological embodiment. In: Meloncon LK, editor. Rhetorical accessability at the intersection of technical communication and disability studies. Amityville, NY: Baywood Pub.; 2013. p. 67–82.
   Google Scholar
• Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract. 2000;50(460):892–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock K. Concordance in medical consultations: a critical review. London: Radcliffe Pub; 2005. p. 216.
   Google Scholar
• Bayertz K. The concept of moral consensus: the case of technological interventions in human reproduction. Boston (MA): Kluwer Acad Pub; 1994. p. 253.
   Google Scholar
• Moreno JD. Deciding together: bioethics and moral consensus. New York (NY): Oxford Univ. Press; 1995. p. 192.
   Google Scholar
• Tilburt J. Shared decision making after Macintyre. J Med Philos. 2011;36(2):148–169. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhr003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman ML. Empathy and moral development: implications for caring and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2001. p. 342.
   Google Scholar
• Batt-Rawden SA, Chisolm MS, Anton B, et al. Teaching empathy to medical students: an updated, systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88(8):1171–1177. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318299f3e3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg N, Miller PA. The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychol Bull. 1987;101(1):91–119. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldie P. Anti-empathy. In: Coplan A, Goldie P, editors. Empathy: philosophical and psychological perspectives. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 2011. p. 302–317.
   Google Scholar
• Coplan A. Understanding empathy: its features and effects. In: Coplan A, Goldie P, editors. Empathy: philosophical and psychological perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 3–18.
   Google Scholar
• Tauber AI. Patient autonomy and the ethics of responsibility. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2005. p. 344.
   Google Scholar
• Halpern J. From detached concern to empathy: humanizing medical practice. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 2001. p. 196.
   Google Scholar
• Halpern J, Little MO. Motivating health. In: Lindemann H, Verkerk M, Walker MU, editors. Naturalized bioethics: toward responsible knowing and practice. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2009. p. 143–161.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer SW, Maxwell M, Heaney D, et al. The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Fam Pract. 2004;21(6):699–705. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riess H, Kraft-Todd G. E.m.p.a.t.h.y.: a tool to enhance nonverbal communication between clinicians and their patients. Acad Med. 2014;89(8):1108–1112. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthias MS, Salyers MP, Frankel RM. Re-thinking shared decision-making: context matters. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(2):176–179. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.01.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frankel RM, Stein T. Getting the most out of the clinical encounter: the four habits model. Permanente J. 1999;3(3):79–88.
   Google Scholar
• Quaschning K, Körner M, Wirtz M. Analyzing the effects of shared decision-making, empathy and team interaction on patient satisfaction and treatment acceptance in medical rehabilitation using a structural equation modeling approach. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(2):167–175. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.12.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaefer KG, Block SD. Physician communication with families in the ICU: evidence-based strategies for improvement. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2009;15(6):569–577. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328332f524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith A, Juraskova I, Butow P, et al. Sharing vs. caring: the relative impact of sharing decisions versus managing emotions on patient outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(2):233–239. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornuz J, Bize R. Motivating for cancer prevention. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2006;168:7–21. doi: 10.1007/3-540-30758-3_2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Las Cuevas C, Rivero-Santana A, Perestelo-Perez L, et al. Mental health professionals’ attitudes to partnership in medicine taking: a validation study of the leeds attitude to concordance scale II. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(2):123–129. doi: 10.1002/pds.2240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay M, Mitchell G, Clavarino A. What doctors want? A consultation method when the patient is a doctor. Aust J Prim Health 2010;16(1):52–59. doi: 10.1071/PY09052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song L, Hamilton JB, Moore AD. Patient-healthcare provider communication: perspectives of African-American cancer patients. Health Psychol. 2012;31(5):539–547. doi: 10.1037/a0025334
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimsbø GH, Ruland CM, Finset A. Cancer patients’ expressions of emotional cues and concerns and oncology nurses’ responses, in an online patient-nurse communication service. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(1):36–43. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardee JT, Platt FW, Kasper IK. Discussing health care costs with patients: an opportunity for empathic communication. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(7):666–669. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0125.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown RF, Butow PN, Henman M, et al. Responding to the active and passive patient: flexibility is the key. Health Expect. 2002;5(3):236–245. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00183.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bylund CL, Peterson EB, Cameron KA. A practitioner’s guide to interpersonal communication theory: an overview and exploration of selected theories. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;87(3):261–267. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.10.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, Scherr KA, Fagerlin A. Empowerment failure: how shortcomings in physician communication unwittingly undermine patient autonomy. Am J Bioethics. 2017;17(11):31–39. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1378753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casrnir FL. Foundations for the study of intercultural communication based on a third-culture building model. Int J Intercult Relat. 1999;23(1):91–116. doi: 10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00027-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stepien KA, Baernstein A. Educating for empathy: a review. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(5):524–530. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00443.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeTurk S. Intercultural empathy: Myth, competency, or possibility for alliance building? Commun Educ. 2001;50(4):374–384. doi: 10.1080/03634520109379262
   Google Scholar
• Bohm D. Wholeness and the implicate order. New York: Routledge; 2008. p. 284.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg EM. Jamming: transcendence through organizing. Commun Res. 1990;17(2):139–164. doi: 10.1177/009365090017002001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukla R. Conscientious autonomy: displacing decisions in health care. Hastings Cent Rep. 2005;35(2):34–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheman N. Narrative, complexity, and context: autonomy as an epistemic value. In: Lindemann H, Verkerk M, Walker MU, editors. Naturalized bioethics: toward responsible knowing and practice. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2009. p. 106–140.
   Google Scholar
• McLeod C, Sherwin S. Relational autonomy, self-trust, and health care for patients who are oppressed. In: Stoljar N, Mackenzie C, editors. Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on automony, agency, and the social self. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 2000. p. 259–279.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson D, Stivers T. Achieving activity transitions in physician-patient encounters. Hum Commun Res. 2001 Apr 1;27(2):253–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. An Int Med. 2004;140(1):54. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-1-200401060-00012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waitzkin H. The politics of medical encounters: how patients and doctors deal with social problems. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Kohut H, Goldberg A, Stepansky PE. How does analysis cure? Chicago (IL): Univ. of Chicago Press; 1984. p. 254.
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB. Influence: science and practice. 5th edBoston: Allyn and Bacon; 2008. p. 272.
   Google Scholar
• Uehara ES. Reciprocity reconsidered: Gouldner’s ‘moral norm of reciprocity’ and social support. J Soc Pers Relatsh. 1995;12(4):483–502. doi: 10.1177/0265407595124001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman I, Taylor DA. Social penetration: the development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 2006. p. 212.
   Google Scholar
• Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L. The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame (IN): Univ. of Notre Dame Press; 1969. p. 576.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin SE. The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2003. p. 262.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace KR. The substance of rhetoric: Good reasons. Q J Speech. 1963;49(3):239–249. doi: 10.1080/00335636309382611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baack D, Fogliasso C, Harris J. The personal impact of ethical decisions: a social penetration theory. J Bus Eth. 2000;24(1):39–49. doi: 10.1023/A:1006016113319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault M. Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–77. New York: Pantheon Books; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Slote M. The ethics of care and empathy. New York: Routledge; 2007. p. 152.
   Google Scholar
• Buie DH. Empathy: its nature and limitations. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1981;29(2):281–307. doi: 10.1177/000306518102900201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar