4.5 Article

Shared decision-making in an intercultural context - Barriers in the interaction between physicians and immigrant patients

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 253-259

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.01.012

Keywords

shared decision-making; intercultural; physician-patient relations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of this exploratory paper is to describe several barriers in shared decision-making in an intercultural context. Methods: Based on the prevailing literature on intercultural communication in medical settings, four conceptual barriers were described. When the conceptual barriers were described, they were compared with the results from semi-structured interviews with purposively selected physicians (n = 18) and immigrant patients (n = 13). Physicians differed in medical discipline (GPs, company doctors, an internist, a cardiologist, a gynaecologist, and an intern) and patients had different ethnic and immigration backgrounds. Results: The following barriers were found: (1) physician and patient may not share the same linguistic background; (2) physician and patient may not share similar values about health and illness; (3) physician and patient may not have similar role expectations; and (4) physician and patient may have prejudices and do not speak to each other in an unbiased manner. Conclusion: We conclude that due to these barriers, the transfer of information, the formulation of the diagnosis, and the discussion of treatment options are at stake and the shared decision-making process is impeded. Practice implications: Improving physician's skills to recognize the communication limitations during shared decision-making as well as improving the skills to deal with the barriers may help to ameliorate shared decision-making in an intercultural setting. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available