Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 4, 2025

Using Visual and Narrative Methods to Achieve Fair Process in Clinical Care
Published on: February 16, 2011
The argumentative role of patient companions in (shared) decision-making
Lotte van Poppel1, Roosmaryn Pilgram2
1University of Groningen, Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 26, Groningen 9712 EK, the Netherlands.
Objective:
This study aims to examine the type of involvement of patient companions in the argumentative exchanges in consultations and explore when their contributions should be taken into account in shared decision-making (SDM).
Methods:
A qualitative analysis was carried out using transcribed medical consultations (N = 10) between health professionals (doctors at a regional Dutch hospital), adult patients and informal patient companions. Insights from argumentation theory were used to develop an inventory of twelve theoretically distinct discussion situations involving patient companions, distinguishing possible discussion roles, disagreement types and coalition formations.
Results:
Consultations contained on average 4.3 discussion situations. In most discussions (37.21 %) the health professional adopted a standpoint, and the patient and their companion only expressed doubt. More complex cases occurred when one of the three parties, including the companion, opposed opinions of the other parties (in 34.88 % of the situations found) and when coalitions were formed (possible in 18.60 % of the situations found). We found that disagreements occurred or were anticipated by all three parties and involved standpoints about the diagnosis as well as treatment options.
Conclusion:
Using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory as an analytical framework reveals that patient companions can substantially influence treatment decision-making during medical consultation. This influence is contingent upon the specific role they assume in the discussion, the type of disagreement with the health professional and patient, and the formation of coalitions with these parties.
Practice Implications:
The contributions by patient companions should be considered in SDM if the companion forms a coalition with the patient. If the companion does not form a coalition, the contributions might have a bearing on SDM as well, but their acceptability and relevance for the treatment decision should be checked by the health professional. In general, it is desirable to explicitly establish the role of patient companions in consultations.
More Related Videos
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
14:43A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Patient-centered Care
Ethical Dilemmas II
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's...
Standards of Care II
Techniques of Therapeutic Communication II: Focusing, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing
This therapeutic technique can also be used when a patient brings up pertinent information during a health-related conversation. The...