PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Fiona A Stevenson

Publications and source records attributed to Fiona A Stevenson.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

A systematic review of the research on communication between patients and health care professionals about medicines: the consequences for concordance.

OBJECTIVES: We draw on a systematic review of research on two-way communication between patients and health practitioners about medicines in order to determine the extent to which concordance is, or is not, being put into practice. DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases were searched using the following categories of search terms: health care professionals, patients/consumers, medicine-taking/prescribing and communication. Articles were also identified from handsearches of journals, article reference lists and the Concordance website. REVIEW METHODS: Studies published between 1991 and 2000 were included. Studies were not excluded on the basis of design, methods or language employed. Abstracts of identified articles were assessed by at least two reviewers and the full articles were assessed by one reviewer and checked by at least one other reviewer. Data on the design, analysis and relevant findings were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 11 801 abstracts were reviewed and 470 full articles were retrieved. Of the 134 articles subsequently included, 116 were descriptive studies. All but 10 of the papers were written in English. There were mixed findings about the extent to which patients feel that their beliefs, experience and preferences about medicines can be shared. Doctors tend to dominate discussions in consultations, although patient participation is associated with positive outcomes. Health care professionals' behaviour can impede as well as enhance patient involvement. CONCLUSIONS: There is little research that examines fundamental issues for concordance such as whether an exchange of views takes place. It is possible that interventions are needed to facilitate the development of concordance in practice.

Drug Therapy↗
PubMed2003

Self-treatment and its discussion in medical consultations: how is medical pluralism managed in practice?

Recent policy changes in the UK such as deregulation of prescribed medicines and the introduction of telephone helpline services are intended to promote self-treatment. Drawing on interviews with, and consultations between, 35 patients and 20 general practitioners, we use Kleinman's (Patients and Healers in the context of culture: an exploration of the Borderland between Anthropology, Medicine and Psychiatry, University of California Press Ltd., London) model of the three sectors of health care in order to examine the range of self-treatments people use and the discussion of these treatments in medical consultations. We argue that despite the availability of a range of treatment options and policy changes advocating greater use of self-treatment, patients are inhibited from disclosing prior self-treatment, and disclosure is affected by patients' perceptions of the legitimacy of self-treatment. The findings are in keeping with Cant and Sharma's (A New Medical Pluralism, Alternative Medicines, Doctors, Patients and the State, UCL Press, London) contention that although there has been a pluralisation of "legitimate" providers of health care and a restructuring of expertise, biomedicine itself remains dominant.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2003

General practitioners' views on shared decision making: a qualitative analysis.

Despite rhetoric about increasing partnership in the consultation, shared decision making (SDM) is not necessarily happening in practice. As patient involvement in decision making cannot be achieved without general practitioners' (GPs) co-operation, attention to their concerns is essential. Previous research has used simulated patients to explore this area. Here, data from consultations and interviews with patients and GPs were used in focus group discussions enabling GPs to ground their views of the practical application of SDM in their own and other participants' real life practice. The following ideas were discussed; what constitutes SDM in practice, negotiation about treatment, perceptions of patients' viewpoints and perceived barriers to SDM. Agreement with SDM in theory may not translate into practice. The process outlined is being developed in order to establish whether the techniques could provide a supportive environment in which GPs can make changes to their practice to increase patient participation.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗