Treatment Recommendations in Oncology Visits: Implications for Patient Agency and Physician Authority

Recommending surgical or non-surgical treatments in medical consultations: The case in Chinese contexts

OBJECTIVES

This study examines the design and delivery of surgical and non-surgical treatment recommendations in China.

METHODS

We examined 936-minute recordings of medical consultations using conversation analysis. Data were collected from two tertiary hospitals in China. They are authentic interactions from the departments of orthopedics and proctology.

RESULTS

Non-surgical treatment recommendations are proposed after diagnoses delivery. They are delivered in straightforward and simple form, and as already determined. Surgical treatment recommendations are proposed early and sometimes occupy the diagnostic slot. They are delivered in straightforward, simple, but mitigated form. These recommendations are formulated as a matter that is not fully settled and requires further discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' stances toward specific treatments are made manifest in the tailoring of doctors' recommendations. The formulations of treatment recommendations exhibit doctors' understanding of what patients are anticipating or resisting. Chinese patients' preference for non-surgical treatments over surgery is reflected in how doctors present the recommendations for surgical and non-surgical treatments.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients' concerns vary depending on the treatments recommended. Doctors should incorporate these concerns into their medical advice. In China, for non-surgical patients, the focus is on clearly explaining the treatment plan. For surgical patients, doctors should first assist them in making informed treatment decisions.

Formulating cancer worries: How doctors establish medical expertise and authority to facilitate patients' care choices

Video recordings of oncology interviews reveal how doctors rely on worry to establish medical expertise, facilitate treatment decision-making, and construct worry parameters to help patients understand whether there is a reasonable need for worry or not. Doctors express worry as frequently as cancer patients during oncology interviews, but they face a dilemma: how to provide care for cancer patients without directly stating they are worried about them? Plausible explanations are offered for why doctors do not state personal worries. Conversation analytic methods were employed to identify how doctors rely on worry to achieve distinct social actions. Four worry formulations are examined: (1) variations of "we worry" (and at times, non-specific and second person "you"), (2) hypothetical worry scenarios, (3) dismissing worry and offering assurance, and (4) doctors claiming they are not worried, bothered, or alarmed. Doctors align with and speak for the professionals and institutions they represent, expressing collective worries and claiming the legitimate right to worry (or not). Doctors also avoid abandoning patients to their own decision-making, yet do not formulate worry to coerce deference or dictate patients' choices. In all cases patients agreed and displayed minimal resistance to doctors' worry formulations. These findings contribute to ongoing work across institutional settings where participants have been shown to construct objective, legitimate claims meriting worries about diverse problems. Work is underway to examine when and how patients explicitly raise and doctors respond to cancer worries. Clinical implications are raised for how doctors can use worry to legitimize best treatment options, help patients minimize their worries, rely on hypothetical scenarios allowing patients to compare how other patients managed their cancer, and not dismiss the importance of minimizing the need to worry as a resource for offering reassurance.

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

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.

Cancer Treatment Decision-Making for People Living With HIV: Physician-Reported Barriers, Facilitators, and Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Compared with the general cancer population, people living with HIV (PLWH) and cancer are less likely to receive treatment and have significantly elevated cancer-specific mortality for many common cancer types. Physician recommendations drive the cancer therapy that patients receive, yet there is limited information assessing how cancer treatment decisions are made for people living with HIV and cancer. We sought to understand oncologist decision-making in PLWH and cancer by eliciting barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for enhancing care delivery.

SETTING

Participants were recruited between May 2019 and May 2021 from one academic medical center in the western United States (n = 13), another in the southeastern United States (n = 7), and community practices nationwide (n = 5).

METHODS

Using an inductive qualitative approach, we conducted in-depth interviews with 25 oncologists from two academic medical centers and community practices.

RESULTS

Facilitators of cancer care delivery included readily available information regarding HIV status and stage, interdepartmental communication, and antiviral therapy adherence. Barriers included a lack of formal education on HIV malignancies, perceptions of decreased life expectancy, fear of inadvertent disclosure, and drug-drug interactions. Recommendations included improved provider communication, patient social and mental health resources, and continuing education opportunities.

CONCLUSION

The study revealed drivers of cancer treatment decision-making, highlighting physician-reported barriers and facilitators, and recommendations to support treatment decision-making. This is the first known study examining oncologists' perceptions of caring for PLWH. Given that cancer is a leading cause of death among PLWH, there is an urgent need to improve care and outcomes.

The Role of Health Care Communication in Treatment Outcomes

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.

Death and the treatment imperative: Decision-making in late-stage cancer

Care at the end-of-life in the United States has expanded in the past decade in large part due to structural changes such as increased access to hospice care, the integration of palliative care, policy mandates, and financial incentives. Despite these shifts, research shows that appropriate end-of-life care continues to be underutilized. This paper uses conversation analytic (CA) and ethnographic methods to examine doctor-patient interactions among a sample of 14 Stage IV cancer patients and the way decisions unfold about next steps in treatment during a moment that larger policy changes began to take place following passage of the Affordable Care Act. This work reveals that, despite structures designed to better facilitate end-of-life care transitions for patients in late life, doctors continue to demonstrate interactional hesitancy in discussing the possibility of a patient's end-of-life in treatment discussions and an orientation to the treatment imperative. Examining doctor-patient interaction as one key trouble source in end-of-life care implementation shows in situ evidence that the treatment imperative supersedes the structural shifts supporting less medical intervention in late life.

The many faces of medical treatment imperatives: Biopower and the cultural authority of medicine in late-life treatment decisions in the United States

Despite changes in specific features of the US health-care system and policy environment in the past 50 years, professional dominance of medicine remains consistent. Extant social science research has considered how the cultural authority of medicine manifests and persists, sometimes emphasizing institutional structural influences and other times focusing on how individuals' agentic behaviour shapes their decisions and strategies regarding the consumption of health-care. We build on and extend these literatures using qualitative in-depth interview data to explore a typology of ways palliative care patients and their caregivers experience medical treatment imperatives across a range of social contexts. Rather than viewing or validating these lived experiences through a medical lens, we foreground the accounts of patients and caregivers as they describe their experiences of where, when, and how they perceive pressure to engage in medical treatment in late life. We adopt a Foucauldian lens to examine how this biopower is both an internal and external experience in our modern biomedicalized society. Our work reveals how treatment imperatives are generated within clinical medical encounters, but also coproduced through multiple and overlapping forces that compel individuals to pursue medical solutions to bodily problems.

When do patients exercise their right to refuse treatment? A conversation analytic study of decision-making trajectories in UK neurology outpatient consultations

Using conversation analysis, this paper investigates when patients exercise their right to refuse treatment in neurology outpatient consultations recorded in the UK's National Health Service in 2012 (n = 224). NHS patients have a right to refuse treatment. However, there are good reasons to suppose that this may be difficult to exercise in practice. We know that clinicians tend to pursue acceptance if it's not forthcoming and those studies that have tracked decision-making trajectories through to their outcomes have shown that clinicians typically convert resistance to acceptance. By contrast, I show that, in 35/40 (87.5 %) cases in which patients sought to refuse treatments made available by a neurologist, they left without a prescription or referral. This paper seeks to explain this apparently anomalous finding. Starting with an example of what I expected to find - a 'duel' that ends with the neurologist persuading the patient to accept treatment - I show that this is, in fact, the exception. By contrast, most of the (attempted) refusals are collaborative, occurring after the neurologist has initiated decision-making in a way that designedly foregrounds the patients' views as the basis for deciding. I show also that, having done so, the neurologists typically continue to treat the decision as subject to the patient's preferences. Thus, the trajectories in my collection - despite including attempts to refuse treatment - do not typically become duels. Rather, patients are refusing treatment in a sequential context that facilitates making their own decision.

Trust and shared decision-making among individuals with multiple myeloma: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable cancer with complex treatment options. Trusting patient-clinician relationships are essential to promote effective shared decision-making that aligns best clinical practices with patient values and preferences. This study sought to shed light on the development of trust between MM patients and clinicians.

METHODS

Nineteen individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with MM patients within 2 years of initial diagnosis or relapse for this qualitative study. Interviews were recorded and transcripts were coded thematically.

RESULTS

We identified three main themes: (1) externally validated trust describes patients' predisposition to trust or distrust clinicians based on factors outside of patient-clinician interactions; (2) internally validated trust describes how patients develop trust based on interactions with specific clinicians. Internally validated trust is driven primarily by clinician communication practices that demonstrate competence, responsiveness, listening, honesty, and empathy; and (3) trust in relation to shared decision-making describes how patients relate the feeling of trust, or lack thereof, to the process of shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Many factors contribute to the development of trust between MM patients and clinicians. While some are outside of clinicians' control, others derive from clinician behaviors and interpersonal communication skills. These findings suggest the possibility that trust can be enhanced through communication training or shared decision-making tools that emphasize relational communication. Given the important role trust plays in shared decision-making, clinicians working with MM patients should prioritize establishing positive, trusting relationships.

Women's (limited) agency over their sexual bodies: Contesting contraceptive recommendations in Brazil

Unintended pregnancies constitute a serious public health concern in Brazil, representing up to 55% of all pregnancies, and are prevalent among women with low income and low educational backgrounds. Lack of assistance to women in their decision-making has hindered the adoption of more effective contraceptive models. Although clinical consultations constitute an important locus to assist women in decision-making and to facilitate access to subsidized methods, our current knowledge of how contraception is discussed and decisions are reached in actual consultations is limited. Just as scarce is our knowledge of how patients respond and resist contraception recommendations and how physicians counter or accommodate patients. Using a corpus of 103 audio-recorded medical visits and conversation analytic (CA) methods, this paper examines recommendation sequences in the under-investigated gynecological consultations in the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS). The quantitative analysis reveals a strong orientation to physicians as having primary rights to govern the oversight of women's bodies: 94% of the recommendations are delivered as pronouncements (e.g., "You'll take X″), the most authoritative action type. Patients largely assume an agreeable and passive role (66%), leading to scarce negotiation and minimal involvement in decision-making. However, in a few cases (12%), all involving contraception, patients become overtly agentive, responding with active resistance. A qualitative analysis of that subset shows that despite women's gaining some agency over their sexual bodies, that agency is still limited. Whereas physicians accommodate patient resistance on grounds of biomedically-related side-effects and incorrect assumptions about the women's lives, they overlook patient resistance based on gendered struggles over contraceptive methods in the domestic sphere. By failing to consider women's lack of agency in choosing whether to have sex or to use condoms, doctors show unawareness of significant consequences of the recommended method, which might include domestic dispute and violence and, paradoxically, ultimately misfire, leading to unwanted pregnancy.

Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System-A Mixed-Methods Study

Over the past decade, there has been a growing development of innovative technologies to treat cancer. Many of these technologies are expensive and not funded by health funds. The present study examined physicians' perceptions of the ethical and clinical aspects of the recommendation and use of unfunded technologies for cancer treatment. This mixed-methods study surveyed 127 oncologists regarding their perceptions toward using unfunded innovative cancer treatment technologies, followed by in-depth interviews with 16 oncologists. Most respondents believed that patients should be offered all treatment alternatives, regardless of their financial situation. However, 59% indicated that they often face dilemmas regarding recommending new unfunded treatments to patients with financial difficulties and without private health insurance. Over a third (38%) stated that they felt uncomfortable discussing the cost of treatment with patients. A predictive model found that physicians facing patients whose medical condition worsened due to an inability to access new treatments, and who expressed the opinion that physicians can assist in locating funding for patients who cannot afford treatments, were more likely to recommend unfunded innovative therapies to patients (F = 5.22, R2 = 0.15, p < 0.001). Subsequent in-depth interviews revealed four key themes: economic considerations in choosing therapy, patient-physician communication, the public healthcare fund, and discussion of treatment costs. Physicians feel a professional commitment to offer patients the best medical care and a moral duty to discuss costs and minimize patients' financial difficulty. There is a need for careful and balanced use of innovative life-prolonging technologies while putting patients at the center of discourse on this complex and controversial issue. It is essential to develop a psychosocial support program for physicians and patients dealing with ethical and psychosocial dilemmas and to set guidelines for oncologists to conduct a comprehensive and collaborative physician-patient discourse regarding all aspects of treatment.

Managing “Stable” Cancer News

This study focuses on oncology interviews with returning patients who have been diagnosed with cancer, are undergoing various treatment regimens, and have been informed by doctors of their current “stable” medical condition. Conversation analysis was conducted on 112 video recorded and transcribed oncology interviews involving 30 doctors. In 44 of 112 (39 percent) interviews, doctors announced stable as good cancer news. In response, patients rarely affirm stable as good news for them. Nonreponses and minimal responses lacking enthusiasm occurred in one third of instances, and in the majority of interactions, patients resisted and questioned impacts of the need to endure ongoing treatments yet reduced possibilities for cancer shrinkage or remission. These interactional disjunctures reflect epistemic dilemmas for doctors seeking to provide quality care and especially for patients who must simultaneously manage good and bad news. Findings extend ongoing research and theoretical development that address the social psychological burdens inherent in disappointment, medical diagnosis, and prognosis. A focus on how patients and doctors manage stable cancer reveals recurring tensions between patients’ lay experiences with illness and how doctors give biomedical priority to controlling cancer.

Patient-Initiated Pain Expressions: Interactional Asymmetries and Consequences for Cancer Care

Only minimal attention has been given to analyzing interactional moments when patients and providers talk about "pain" in general consultations and primary care, and no attention has focused on how pain gets managed during oncology interviews. Conversation analysis (CA) is used to examine a sampling of instances drawn from a collection of 146 pain instances across 65 video recorded and transcribed clinical encounters in a comprehensive cancer clinic. Specific attention is drawn to how pain descriptions are not static but malleable as cancer patients upgrade, downgrade, and produce combined orientations when making their experiences available to oncologists. In response, it is shown that doctors acknowledge patients' descriptions, but do not elaborate nor affiliate with, important pain disclosures. Three interactional environments are closely examined: 1) Reporting and responding to past pain/hurt incidents; 2) Doctor's missing assessments in response to good news announcements about patients' minimal pain; and 3) Patient-initiated pain responses to doctors' questions. These empirical findings confirm identified patterns of interactional asymmetries comprising pain events in UK consultations and USA primary care. Close examination of these social actions provides basic knowledge about how pain communication reframes historical understandings of individuals' pain experiences. Implications for future research are identified, and a protocol is described for how clinical practice and medical education can be improved by refining understandings of pain communication to promote increased sensitivities and more personalized responses to pain expressions.

The duality of option-listing in cancer care

OBJECTIVE

Listing more than one option for treatment, termed "option-listing" (OL) is one way to facilitate shared decision-making. We seek to evaluate how oncologists do option-listing in clinical encounters across disease contexts.

METHOD

We coded and transcribed 90 video-recorded interactions between 5 oncologist participants and a convenience sample of 82 patients at 2 large clinics in the western U.S. We used conversation analytic (CA) methods to examine patterns of behavior when oncologists provided more than one treatment option to patients.

RESULTS

In early-stage disease, OL provides patients with options while at the same time constraining those options through expression of physician bias. This effect disappears when cancer is at an advanced stage. In this context, OL is presented without physician preference and demonstrates recission of medical authority.

CONCLUSION

In early-stage contexts, OL functions as a way for physicians to array available options to patients while also communicating their expertise. In advanced-stage contexts, OL functions as a way to minimize treatment options and highlight dwindling possibilities.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

OL is one way to implement shared decision-making, but it can also be used to facilitate a realization that treatment choices are diminishing and disease is progressing beyond a cure.

Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome

Existing sociological research documents patient and physician reticence to discuss death in the context of a patient's end of life. This study offers a new approach to analyzing how death gets discussed in medical interaction. Using a corpus of 90 video-recorded oncology visits and conversation analytic (CA) methods, this analysis reveals that when existing parameters are expanded to look at mentions of death outside of the end-of-life context, physicians do discuss death with their patients. Specifically, the most frequent way physicians invoke death is in a persuasive context during treatment recommendation discussions. When patients demonstrate active or passive resistance to a recommendation, physicians invoke the possibility of the patient's death to push back against this resistance and lobby for treatment. Occasionally, physicians invoke death in instances where resistance is anticipated but never actualized. Similarly, death invocations function for treatment advocacy. Ultimately, this study concludes that physicians in these data invoke death to leverage their professional authority for particular treatment outcomes.