Patient non-adherence is a common and important concern in clinical medicine. Some cases of patient non-adherence are cases in which the patient disagrees with the physician's recommended treatment based on particular reasons. Drawing upon science and technology studies literature, specifically the discussion by Collins and Evans and Wynne of how best to understand scientific controversies, I relate their ideas to the analogous conflict that may occur within a clinical interaction. I draw upon their recognition of the importance of contributory expertise and interactional expertise in providing legitimate knowledge. I also draw upon Wynne's idea of the 'negotiation of meanings' as an important element of the clinical interaction. To resolve potential conflicts between patient and physician before they develop into 'non-adherence', I propose the implementation of a new epistemological framework that recognizes legitimate knowledge offered by the patient as well as the physician. By situating this patient expertise framework within the paradigm of patient-centred medicine, and by assuming the goal of medical treatment to be treatment of suffering, patient expertise becomes centralized as a means of determining the nature of patient suffering. Two aspects of the patient's tacit knowledge - the body aspect and the meaning aspect - both of which are context-dependent and directly accessible only to the patient, are thus recognized as knowledge essential to the success of the interaction. The physician's role becomes that of both medical expert and possessor of 'interactional expertise', by which the physician recognizes and includes patient expertise in the treatment decision. By recognizing and incorporating the negotiation of meanings into the development of a treatment plan, this epistemological model of patient expertise should prevent cases of non-adherence based on disagreement.
Patient non-adherence is a common and important problem in clinical medicine. Some cases of patient non-adherence are cases in which the patient disagrees with the physician’s recommended treatment based on particular reasons. In this chapter, by drawing upon the science and technology studies literature, specifically the discussion by Collins and Evans and also Wynne of how best to understand scientific controversies, I relate their ideas to the analogous conflict that may occur within a clinical encounter. I draw upon their recognition of the importance of contributory expertise and interactional expertise in providing legitimate knowledge. I also draw upon Wynne’s idea of the ‘negotiation of meanings’ as an important element of the clinical interaction. To resolve potential conflicts between patient and physician before they develop into ‘non-adherence’, I propose the need for a new epistemological framework that recognizes legitimate knowledge offered by the patient as well as the physician. By situating this patient expertise framework within the paradigm of person-centred medicine, and by assuming the goal of medical treatment to be treatment of suffering, patient expertise becomes centralized as a means of determining the nature of patient suffering. Two aspects of the patient’s tacit knowledge - the body aspect and the meaning aspect - both of which are context-dependent and directly accessible only to the patient, are thus recognized as knowledge essential to the success of the interaction. The physician’s role becomes that of both medical expert and possessor of interactional expertise, by which the physician recognizes and includes patient expertise in the treatment decision. Finally, the patient expertise framework must also involve recognizing and incorporating the ‘negotiation of meanings’ into the development of a treatment plan. By acknowledging the importance of patient expertise and the negotiation of meanings, this patient expertise framework should dissolve the problem of patient non-adherence that derives from the patient disagreeing with the therapeutic plan.
In Canada, little is known about residents' self-confidence to diagnose/treat musculoskeletal (MSK) disease and factors affecting pursuit of a rheumatology career. Our study explored these factors. An online survey (descriptive cross-sectional design) was distributed to Canadian postgraduate year (PGY) 1 and 2 internal medicine (IM) residents. Questions probed self-confidence in rheumatology and factors influencing subspecialty career choice. Frequencies were determined and responses compared between PGY-1 and PGY-2 using univariate statistical analyses. Fifty-four IM residents completed the survey. PGY-2 residents were statistically more certain in subspecialty decidedness and had higher levels of self-confidence to diagnose/treat MSK disease and perform a physical exam. "Quality of life" was the most encouraging factor for a rheumatology career choice followed by "job opportunities" and "previous clinical exposure." Although 50% of PGY-1 residents had completed a rheumatology clinical rotation, 76% indicated that increased knowledge would affect rheumatology career choice. Only 38% were interested in novel rheumatology education. No difference in rheumatology exposure, rheumatology clinical rotation completion year, or rheumatology career choice was observed. Our research confirms findings from similar United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) studies that suggest that increased MSK knowledge positively influences residents' confidence to diagnose/treat MSK disease. Our study differs with Canadian PGY-1 and PGY-2 IM residents by evaluating self-confidence to diagnose/treat MSK disease separately from self-confidence to perform a physical exam. Significant differences between first and second year trainees suggest types/quality of rheumatology experiences (e.g., case complexity, diagnostic problem-solving competency) may affect self-confidence to diagnose/treat MSK disease factors and rheumatology career choice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.