人高于模型:以人为本的医学共享决策

M. Annoni, C. Blease
{"title":"人高于模型:以人为本的医学共享决策","authors":"M. Annoni, C. Blease","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the last decades “shared decision-making” has been hailed as the new paradigm for the doctor-patient relationship. However, different models of clinical decision-making appear to be compatible with the core tenets of “shared decision-making”. Reconsidering Emanuel and Emanuel (1992) classic analysis, in this paper we distinguish five possible models of clinical decision-making: (i) the ‘instrumental’; (ii) the ‘paternalistic’; (iii) the ‘informative’; (iv) the ‘interpretative’; and (v) the ‘persuasive’ models. For each model we present its fundamental assumptions as well as the role that patients and doctors are expected to play with respect to value-laden dilemmas. We argue that, with the exception of the instrumental model, each of the other four models may be appropriate depending on the circumstances. We conclude by highlighting the importance of structuring clinical care around actual persons - and their unique lives and philosophies - rather than around abstract frameworks.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"73 1","pages":"355-362"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine\",\"authors\":\"M. Annoni, C. Blease\",\"doi\":\"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1864\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the last decades “shared decision-making” has been hailed as the new paradigm for the doctor-patient relationship. However, different models of clinical decision-making appear to be compatible with the core tenets of “shared decision-making”. Reconsidering Emanuel and Emanuel (1992) classic analysis, in this paper we distinguish five possible models of clinical decision-making: (i) the ‘instrumental’; (ii) the ‘paternalistic’; (iii) the ‘informative’; (iv) the ‘interpretative’; and (v) the ‘persuasive’ models. For each model we present its fundamental assumptions as well as the role that patients and doctors are expected to play with respect to value-laden dilemmas. We argue that, with the exception of the instrumental model, each of the other four models may be appropriate depending on the circumstances. We conclude by highlighting the importance of structuring clinical care around actual persons - and their unique lives and philosophies - rather than around abstract frameworks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal for person centered healthcare\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"355-362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal for person centered healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1864\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal for person centered healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1864","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在过去的几十年里,“共同决策”被誉为医患关系的新范式。然而,不同的临床决策模式似乎与“共同决策”的核心原则是兼容的。重新考虑Emanuel和Emanuel(1992)的经典分析,在本文中,我们区分了五种可能的临床决策模型:(i)“工具性”;(ii)“家长式作风”;(iii)“信息丰富”;(iv)“解释性”;(五)“说服性”模型。对于每个模型,我们都提出了它的基本假设,以及患者和医生在价值困境中应该扮演的角色。我们认为,除工具模型外,其他四种模型中的每一种都可能根据具体情况而适当。最后,我们强调了围绕实际的人——以及他们独特的生活和哲学——而不是围绕抽象的框架来构建临床护理的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine
In the last decades “shared decision-making” has been hailed as the new paradigm for the doctor-patient relationship. However, different models of clinical decision-making appear to be compatible with the core tenets of “shared decision-making”. Reconsidering Emanuel and Emanuel (1992) classic analysis, in this paper we distinguish five possible models of clinical decision-making: (i) the ‘instrumental’; (ii) the ‘paternalistic’; (iii) the ‘informative’; (iv) the ‘interpretative’; and (v) the ‘persuasive’ models. For each model we present its fundamental assumptions as well as the role that patients and doctors are expected to play with respect to value-laden dilemmas. We argue that, with the exception of the instrumental model, each of the other four models may be appropriate depending on the circumstances. We conclude by highlighting the importance of structuring clinical care around actual persons - and their unique lives and philosophies - rather than around abstract frameworks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The ethical and epistemic roles of narrative in person-centred healthcare Person-Centred Healthcare versus Patient Centricity - what is the difference and how are pharmaceutical companies aiming to secure internal representation of the patient voice? Moving past phronesis: clinical reasoning in person-centered care Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine lifestyle and degeneracy
×
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:481959085
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