View Item 

Show simple item record

Questioning context: a set of interdisciplinary questions for investigating contextual factors affecting health decision making

dc.contributor.authorCharise, Andreaen_US
dc.contributor.authorWitteman, Hollyen_US
dc.contributor.authorWhyte, Sarahen_US
dc.contributor.authorSutton, Erica J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBender, Jacqueline L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMassimi, Michaelen_US
dc.contributor.authorStephens, Lindsayen_US
dc.contributor.authorEvans, Joshuaen_US
dc.contributor.authorLogie, Carmenen_US
dc.contributor.authorMirza, Raza M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorElf, Marieen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-11-10T15:35:09Z
dc.date.available2012-07-12T17:42:24Zen_US
dc.date.issued2011-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationCharise, Andrea; Witteman, Holly; Whyte, Sarah; Sutton, Erica J.; Bender, Jacqueline L.; Massimi, Michael; Stephens, Lindsay; Evans, Joshua; Logie, Carmen; Mirza, Raza M.; Elf, Marie (2011). "Questioning context: a set of interdisciplinary questions for investigating contextual factors affecting health decision making." Health Expectations 14(2). <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/86973>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1369-6513en_US
dc.identifier.issn1369-7625en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/86973
dc.description.abstractObjective  To combine insights from multiple disciplines into a set of questions that can be used to investigate contextual factors affecting health decision making. Background  Decision‐making processes and outcomes may be shaped by a range of non‐medical or ‘contextual’ factors particular to an individual including social, economic, political, geographical and institutional conditions. Research concerning contextual factors occurs across many disciplines and theoretical domains, but few conceptual tools have attempted to integrate and translate this wide‐ranging research for health decision‐making purposes. Methods  To formulate this tool we employed an iterative, collaborative process of scenario development and question generation. Five hypothetical health decision‐making scenarios (preventative, screening, curative, supportive and palliative) were developed and used to generate a set of exploratory questions that aim to highlight potential contextual factors across a range of health decisions. Findings  We present an exploratory tool consisting of questions organized into four thematic domains – Bodies, Technologies, Place and Work (BTPW) – articulating wide‐ranging contextual factors relevant to health decision making. The BTPW tool encompasses health‐related scholarship and research from a range of disciplines pertinent to health decision making, and identifies concrete points of intersection between its four thematic domains. Examples of the practical application of the questions are also provided. Conclusions  These exploratory questions provide an interdisciplinary toolkit for identifying the complex contextual factors affecting decision making. The set of questions comprised by the BTPW tool may be applied wholly or partially in the context of clinical practice, policy development and health‐related research.en_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherContextual Factorsen_US
dc.subject.otherHealth Decision Makingen_US
dc.subject.otherInterdisciplinaryen_US
dc.subject.otherNon‐Medical Factorsen_US
dc.subject.otherPreference‐Sensitiveen_US
dc.titleQuestioning context: a set of interdisciplinary questions for investigating contextual factors affecting health decision makingen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumPost Doctoral Fellow, Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDoctoral Fellow Alumnus, Health Care, Technology and Place (HCTP) Strategic Training Programen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDoctoral Candidate, Department of Englishen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDoctoral Alumnus, Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canadaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDoctoral Candidate, Department of English Language and Literature, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canadaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDoctoral Candidate, Dalla Lana School of Public Healthen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDoctoral Candidate, Department of Computer Scienceen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDoctoral Candidate, Department of Geography and Program in Planningen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherAffiliated Researcher, Women and Gender Studies Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canadaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherPost Doctoral Fellow Alumnus, Health Care, Technology and Place (HCTP) Strategic Training Programen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherAssistant Professor, Human Geography, Centre for Global and Social Analysis, Athabasca University, Edmonton, Canadaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDoctoral Candidate, Faculty of Social Worken_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDoctoral Candidate, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canadaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherResearcher and Project Leader, Department of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Swedenen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherSenior Lecturer, Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of Dalarna, Dalarna, Swedenen_US
dc.identifier.pmid21029277en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/86973/1/j.1369-7625.2010.00618.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00618.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceHealth Expectationsen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith M, Askew D. Choosing childbirth provider location – rural women’s perspective. Rural and Remote Health, 2006. Available at: http://rrh.deakin.edu.au, accessed 21 September 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBeaver K, Jones D, Susnerwala S et al. Exploring the decision‐making preferences of people with colorectal cancer. Health Expectations, 2005; 8: 103 – 113.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWirtz V, Cribb A, Barber N. Patient‐doctor decision‐making about treatment within the consultation – a critical analysis of models. Social Science & Medicine, 2006; 62: 116 – 124.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFarmer PE, Nizeye B, Stulac S, Keshavjee S. Structural violence and clinical medicine. PLoS Medicine, 2006; 3: 1686 – 1691.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFagerlin A, Zikmund‐Fisher B, Ubel P. Cure me even if it kills me: preferences for invasive cancer treatment. Medical Decision Making, 2005; 25: 614 – 619.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZikmund‐Fisher B, Sarr B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P. A matter of perspective: choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2006; 21: 618 – 622.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKennedy I. Treat Me Right: Essays in Medical Law and Ethics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFlynn KE, Smith MA. Personality and health care decision‐making style. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 2007; 62B: 261 – 267.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInstitute of Medicine (IOM). The IOM Report: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBodenheimer T, Wagner E, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model. The journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2002; 288: 1909 – 1914.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCharles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision‐making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango) Social Sciences & Medicine, 1997; 44: 681 – 692.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCharles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision‐making in the physician‐patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision‐making model. Social Science & Medicine, 1999; 49: 651 – 661.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKaplan S, Kaplan R. Health, supportive environments, and the reasonable person model. American Journal of Public Health, 2003; 93: 1484 – 1489.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMakoul G, Clayman M. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 2006; 60: 301 – 312.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCoulter A. Shared decision‐making: the debate continues [Editorial]. Health Expectations, 2005; 8: 95 – 96.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2008; 300: 436 – 438.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLyerly A, Mitchell L, Armstrong E et al. Risks, values, and decision making surrounding pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2007; 109: 979 – 984.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrennan P, Strombom I. Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA), 1998; 5: 257 – 262.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceElwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. British Journal of General Practice, 2000; 50: 892 – 899.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHolmes‐Rovner M, Valade DOC, Draus C, Nabozny‐Valerio B, Keiser S. Implementing shared decision‐making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities. Health Expectations, 2000; 3: 182 – 191.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBensing J. Bridging the gap. The separate worlds of evidence‐based medicine and patient‐centered medicine. Patient Education and Counseling, 2000; 39: 17 – 25.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDegner L, Sloan J, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 1997; 29: 21 – 43.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDegner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D et al. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 1997; 277: 1485 – 1492.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWoolf SH, Chan ECY, Harris R et al. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2005; 143: 293 – 300.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNewman PA, Williams C, Massaquoi N, Brown M, Logie C. HIV prevention for Black women: structural barriers and opportunities. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 2008; 19: 829 – 841.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEdwards A, Elwyn G, Wood F et al. Shared decision making and risk communication in practice: a qualitative study of GPs’ experiences. British Journal of General Practice, 2005; 55: 6 – 13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCharles C, Gafni A, Whelan T, O’Brien M. Cultural influences on the physician‐patient encounter: the case of shared treatment decision‐making. Patient Education and Counseling, 2006; 63: 262 – 267.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWhitney S, Holmes‐Rovner M, Brody H et al. Beyond shared decision making: an expanded typology of medical decisions. Medical Decision Making, 2008; 28: 699 – 705.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBenbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M. Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behavioral Medicine, 1998; 24: 81 – 88.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVogel BA, Helmes AW, Hasenburg A. Concordance between patients’ desired and actual decision‐making roles in breast cancer care. Psycho-Oncology, 2008; 17: 182 – 189.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcCormack B, McCance T. Development of a framework for person‐centred nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2006; 56: 472 – 479.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRycroft‐Malone J, Harvey G, Kitson A, McCormack B, Titchen A. Getting evidence into practice: ingredients for change. Nursing Standard, 2002; 16: 38 – 43.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLavis J. Ideas at the margin or marginalized ideas? Nonmedical determinants of health in Canada. Health Affairs, 2002; 21: 107 – 112.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEntwistle V, Watt I. Patient involvement in treatment decision‐making: the case for a broader conceptual framework. Patient Education and Counseling, 2006; 63: 268 – 278.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMead N, Bower P. Patient‐centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social Science & Medicine, 2000; 51: 1087 – 1110.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTowle A, Godolphin W. Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making... including commentary by Greenhalgh, T and Gambrill, J. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 1999; 319: 766 – 771.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcKinlay JB, Potter DA, Feldman HA. Non‐medical influences on medical decision‐making. Social Science & Medicine, 1996; 42: 769 – 776.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavis RE, Rosamund J, Sevdalis N, Vincent CA. Patient involvement in patient safety: what factors influence patient participation and engagement? Health Expectations, 2007; 10: 259 – 267.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSafford MM, Allison JJ, Kiefe CI. Patient complexity: more than comorbidity. The Vector Model of complexity. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2007; 22: 382 – 390.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 1974; 185: 1124 – 1131.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUbel PA. How stable are people’s preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Social Science & Medicine, 1999; 49: 895 – 903.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch GH. Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Medical Decision Making, 2005; 25: 290 – 300.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHCTP (Health, Care, Technology and Place). Available at: http://www.hctp.utoronto.ca/, accessed 21 September 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcKeever P, Coyte P. The Health Care Technologies Place Strategic Training Programme. Report prepared under the auspices of a CIHR Research Funding Grant, 1999.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYin KR. Case Study Research. Applied Social Research Methods. London: Sage Publications, Inc., 1989.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBenner PE. Interpretive Phenomenology: embodiment, Caring, and Ethics in Health and Illness. By Nurse–Patient Relations. London: SAGE, 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCurrier D. Feminist technological futures: Deleuze and body/technology assemblages. Feminist Theory, 2003; 4: 321 – 338.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeleuze G, Guattari F. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaraway D. Simians Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, 1991.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLonghurst R. Bodies: Exploring Fluid Boundaries. London: Routledge, 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShildrick M. Embodying the Monster: Encounters with the Vulnerable Self. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeleuze G. Lecture transcripts on Spinoza’s concept of affect. Emilie Deleuze Julien Deleuze, 1978.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGatens M. Imaginary Bodies: Ethics Power and Corporeality. New York: Routledge, 1996.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceProbyn E. Outside Belonging. New York: Routledge, 1996.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGarbarini F, Adenzato M. At the root of embodied cognition: cognitive science meets neurophysiology. Brain and Cognition, 2004; 54: 100 – 106.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHird MJ. The corporeal generosity of maternity. Body & Society, 2007; 13: 1 – 20.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJanz N, Becker M. The Health Belief Model: a decade later. Health Education Behavior, 1984; 11: 1 – 47.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFishbein M. A theory of reasoned action some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1980; 27: 65 – 116.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceProchaska J, DiClemente C. Stages of change in the modification of problem behaviors. Progress in Behavior Modification, 1992; 28: 184 – 218.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmaro H, Raj A, Reed E. Women’s sexual health: the need for feminist analyses in public health in the decade of behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2003; 25: 324 – 334.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceParker R, Aggletonb P. HIV and AIDS‐related stigma and discrimination: a conceptual framework and implications for action. Social Science & Medicine, 2003; 57: 13 – 24.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVermund S, Wilson C. Barriers to HIV testing: where next? The Lancet, 2002; 360: 1186 – 1187.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCampbell C, Deacon H. Unraveling the contexts of stigma: from internalization to resistance to change. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2006; 16: 411 – 417.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDoi K. Computer‐aided diagnosis in medical imaging: historical review, current status and future potential. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 2007; 31: 198 – 211.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZhu Y, Williams S, Zwiggelaar R. Computer technology in detection and staging of prostate carcinoma: a review. Medical Image Analysis, 2006; 10: 178 – 199.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLottridge D, Chignell M, Danicic‐Mizdrak R et al. Group differences in physician responses to handheld presentation of clinical evidence: a verbal protocol analysis. BioMed Central (BMC) Medical Informatics & Decision Making, 2007; 7: 22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrom A. Virtually he@lthy: the impact of internet use on disease experience and the doctor‐patient relationship. Qualitative Health Research, 2005; 15: 325 – 345.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFranklin U. The Real World of Technology. CBC Massey Lecture Series. Toronto: Anansi Press, 1992.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTimmermans S, Berg M. The practice of medical technology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 2003; 25: 97 – 114.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceComo J. Spiritual practice: a literature review related to spiritual health and health outcomes. Holistic Nursing Practice, 2007; 21: 224 – 236.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M. Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Holistic Nursing Practice, 2007; 21: 224 – 236.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWard E, King M, Lloyd M et al. Randomised controlled trial of non‐directive counseling, cognitive‐behaviour therapy, and usual general practitioner care for patients with depression. I: clinical effectiveness. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2000; 2: 1383 – 1388.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlasgow R. eHealth evaluation and dissemination research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2007; 32: 119 – 126.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBanta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy, 2003; 63: 121 – 132.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLehoux P, Blume SS. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 2000; 25: 1083 – 1120.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWeb Accessibility Initiative (WAI). 2008. Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/, accessed 21 September 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeilsen J. Usability Engineering. Boston: Academic Press, 1993.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKeelan J, Pavri‐Garcia V, Tomlinson G, Wilson K. YouTube as a source of information on immunization: a content analysis. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2007; 5: 2482 – 2484.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in‐depth interviews. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2002; 324: 573 – 577.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSillence E, Briggs P, Harris PR, Fishwick L. How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information? Social Science & Medicine, 2007; 64: 1853 – 1862.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreene J. What nurses want. Different generations. Different expectations. Hospitals & Health Networks, 2005; 79: 40 – 42.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMol A, Elsman B. Detecting disease and designing treatment. Duplex and the diagnosis of diseased leg vessels. Sociology of Health and Illness, 1996; 18: 609 – 631.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarrett F. Disease and Geography. The History of an Idea. Toronto: Becker Associates, 2000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoberts P, Rexe K, Anderson J. Poverty by postal code. Available at: http://www.ccsd.ca/research.htm, accessed 21 September 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGibson B, Upshur R, Young N, McKeever P. Disability, technology, and place: social and ethical implications of long‐term dependency on medical devices. Ethics, Place & Environment, 2007; 10: 7 – 28.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGesler W, Bell M, Curtis S, Hubbard P, Francis S. Therapy by design: evaluating the UK hospital building program. Health & Place, 2004; 10: 117 – 128.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGesler W, Kearns R. Culture/Place/Health. London: Routledge, 2002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKearns R, Moon G. From medical to health geography: novelty, place and theory after a decade of change. Progress in Human Geography, 2002; 26: 605 – 625.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede Swaan A, Jencks C, Verderber S, Betsky A. The Architecture of Hospitals. Wagenaar C (ed.). Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2006: 1 – 512.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSegal JZ. Health and the Rhetoric of Medicine. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEntriken N. The Betweenness of Place: Towards a Geography of Modernity. Baltimore, MD: Maryland John Hopkins University Press, 1991.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTuan Y. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall, 1974.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith D. Moral Geographies. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnston D, Pratt G, Watts M. The Dictionary of Human Geography, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOandasan I, Reeves S. Key elements of interprofessional education. Part 2: factors, processes and outcomes. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 2005; 19 ( Suppl. 1 ): 39 – 48.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOandasan I, Reeves S. Key elements for interprofessional education. Part 1: the learner, the educator and the learning context. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 2005; 19 ( Suppl. 1 ): 21 – 38.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArmstrong P, Armstrong H, Scott‐Dixon K. Critical to Care: The Invisible Women in Health Services. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMartimianakis MA, Maniate J, Hodges BD. Sociological interpretations of professionalism. Medical Education, 2009; 43: 829 – 837.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGieryn TF. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 1983; 48: 781 – 795.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZiebland S. The importance of being expert: the quest for cancer information on the Internet. Social Science & Medicine, 2004; 59: 1783 – 1793.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePrior L. Belief, knowledge and expertise: the emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 2003; 25: 41 – 57.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFox NJ, Ward KJ, O’Rourke AJ. The ‘Expert Patient’: empowerment or medical dominance? The case of xenical, weight loss and the internet Social Science & Medicine, 2005; 16: 1299 – 1309.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBadcott D. The expert patient: valid recognition or false hope? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 2005; 8: 173 – 178.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNettleton S. The emergence of E‐Scaped medicine? Sociology, 2004; 38: 661 – 679.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMay C, Montori V, Mair F. We need minimally disruptive medicine. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2009; 339: 2803.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHenwood F, Wyatt S, Hart A, Smith J. ‘Ignorance is bliss sometimes’: constraints on the emergence of the ‘informed patient’ in the changing landscapes of health information. Sociology of Health & Illness, 2003; 25: 589 – 607.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCohen E, Masum H, Berndtson K et al. Public engagement on global health challenges. BioMed Central (BMC) Public Health, 2008; 20: 168.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFoster‐Fishman P, Cantillon D, Pierce S, Van Egeren L. Building an active citizenry: the role of neighborhood problems, readiness, and capacity for change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2007; 39: 91 – 106.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCoulter A, Ellins J. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2007; 335: 24 – 27.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFraser SW, Greenhalgh T. Coping with complexity: educating for capability. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2001; 323: 799 – 803.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePlsek PE, Greenhalgh T. The challenge of complexity in health care. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2001; 323: 625 – 628.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChoi BC, Pak AW. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 3. Discipline, inter‐discipline distance, and selection of discipline. Clinical Investigation Medicine, 2008; 31: 41 – 48.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEngel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science, 1977; 196: 129 – 136.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMay C, Mort M, Williams T, Mair F, Gask L. Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare. Social Science & Medicine, 2003; 57: 697 – 710.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrown L, Strega S. Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous and Anti‐Oppressive Approaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCaress A‐L, Luker KA, Ackrill P. Patient‐sensitive treatment decision‐ making? Preferences and perceptions in a sample of renal patients Nursing Times Research, 1998; 3: 364 – 372.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1369-7625.2010.00618.x.pdf
Size:
193.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.