The power paradox of patient-centred care in Chinese community health: Towards a conceptualisation

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Social Science & Medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117883
Bo Li
{"title":"The power paradox of patient-centred care in Chinese community health: Towards a conceptualisation","authors":"Bo Li","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Patient-centred care (PCC) is widely heralded as a transformative healthcare paradigm, designed to prioritise patients' unique needs, preferences, and values in clinical decision-making. By potentially shifting away from the historically provider-centric model, PCC aims to empower patients as autonomous, active participants. However, critical questions remain: Does PCC genuinely dismantle power asymmetries, or does it merely serve as rhetoric subtly reinforcing existing hierarchies under the guise of empowerment? This study examines this power paradox—the disconnect between PCC's rhetorical positioning and its superficial implementation—through Steven Lukes' three dimensions of power, focusing on China's community healthcare system, where patient-centred ideals are strongly advocated. A year-long non-participant observation at a major community health centre in Shenzhen, complemented by semi-structured interviews with 16 general practitioners (GPs) and 18 hypertensive patients (HPs), informed an iterative thematic analysis. The analysis identified three paradoxes that complicate PCC's vision of patient empowerment. First, protective authority demonstrates how GPs' protective intentions manifest as directive behaviours, fostering dependency and limiting patient agency. Second, framing authority reveals how organisational norms, policies, and clinical expectations constrain patient choice, prioritising compliance over autonomy. Lastly, internalised compliance highlights PCC's ideological power, where HPs internalise adherence as integral to their identity as ‘good’ patients, embedding deference to medical authority within their sense of well-being. These findings offer critical insights into PCC's power paradox, questioning its theoretical capacity to redress entrenched provider-patient power imbalances. Addressing these challenges necessitates systemic reforms and shifts in clinical practice to genuinely prioritise patient-centredness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"371 ","pages":"Article 117883"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625002126","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patient-centred care (PCC) is widely heralded as a transformative healthcare paradigm, designed to prioritise patients' unique needs, preferences, and values in clinical decision-making. By potentially shifting away from the historically provider-centric model, PCC aims to empower patients as autonomous, active participants. However, critical questions remain: Does PCC genuinely dismantle power asymmetries, or does it merely serve as rhetoric subtly reinforcing existing hierarchies under the guise of empowerment? This study examines this power paradox—the disconnect between PCC's rhetorical positioning and its superficial implementation—through Steven Lukes' three dimensions of power, focusing on China's community healthcare system, where patient-centred ideals are strongly advocated. A year-long non-participant observation at a major community health centre in Shenzhen, complemented by semi-structured interviews with 16 general practitioners (GPs) and 18 hypertensive patients (HPs), informed an iterative thematic analysis. The analysis identified three paradoxes that complicate PCC's vision of patient empowerment. First, protective authority demonstrates how GPs' protective intentions manifest as directive behaviours, fostering dependency and limiting patient agency. Second, framing authority reveals how organisational norms, policies, and clinical expectations constrain patient choice, prioritising compliance over autonomy. Lastly, internalised compliance highlights PCC's ideological power, where HPs internalise adherence as integral to their identity as ‘good’ patients, embedding deference to medical authority within their sense of well-being. These findings offer critical insights into PCC's power paradox, questioning its theoretical capacity to redress entrenched provider-patient power imbalances. Addressing these challenges necessitates systemic reforms and shifts in clinical practice to genuinely prioritise patient-centredness.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国社区卫生中以病人为中心的护理的权力悖论:走向概念化
以患者为中心的护理(PCC)被广泛认为是一种变革性的医疗保健模式,旨在在临床决策中优先考虑患者的独特需求、偏好和价值观。通过从传统的以提供者为中心的模式转变,PCC旨在使患者成为自主的、积极的参与者。然而,关键的问题仍然存在:PCC是真正消除了权力不对称,还是仅仅是在授权的幌子下巧妙地加强了现有的等级制度?本研究考察了这种权力悖论——PCC的修辞定位和表面实施之间的脱节——通过史蒂芬·卢克斯的三个权力维度,重点关注中国的社区医疗保健系统,在那里,以病人为中心的理想被强烈提倡。在深圳一家大型社区卫生中心进行了为期一年的非参与性观察,并对16名全科医生(gp)和18名高血压患者(hp)进行了半结构化访谈,为反复的主题分析提供了信息。分析发现了使PCC赋予患者权力的愿景复杂化的三个矛盾。首先,保护性权威表明,全科医生的保护意图如何表现为指导性行为,助长了依赖性,限制了患者的能动性。其次,框架权威揭示了组织规范、政策和临床期望如何限制患者的选择,优先考虑合规性而不是自主性。最后,内化的依从性突出了PCC的意识形态力量,hp将依从性内化为“好”患者身份的一部分,将对医疗权威的尊重嵌入到他们的幸福感中。这些发现为PCC的权力悖论提供了重要的见解,质疑其纠正根深蒂固的提供者-患者权力不平衡的理论能力。应对这些挑战需要系统性改革和临床实践的转变,以真正优先考虑以患者为中心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
期刊最新文献
Fair pay, performance optimizer, or status marker? The social meaning of remuneration for India's women community health workers ‘A gendered family affair’? Examining the role of partners', parents', and parents-in-law's education in preventive healthcare use among older men and women How do traits and dispositional constructs relate to intentions and behavior? The trait-informed attitude, cognition, and intention tenet (TACIT) Multimodal metaphors in animated depression educational videos on Chinese social media: A critical multimodal discourse analysis The role of parental consent: Implications for surveying minors who experience or are at risk for commercial sexual exploitation in the United States
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1