| Title |
Power Issues in the Doctor-Patient Relationship
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Care Analysis, December 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1023/a:1013812802937 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Stephen Buetow |
| Abstract |
Power is an inescapable aspect of all social relationships, and inherently is neither good nor evil. Doctors need power to fulfil their professional obligations to multiple constituencies including patients, the community and themselves. Patients need power to formulate their values, articulate and achieve health needs, and fulfil their responsibilities. However, both parties can use or misuse power. The ethical effectiveness of a health system is maximised by empowering doctors and patients to develop 'adult-adult' rather than 'adult-child' relationships that respect and enable autonomy, accountability, fidelity and humanity. Even in adult-adult relationships, conflicts and complexities arise. Lack of concordance between doctors and patients can encourage paternalism but may be best resolved through negotiated care. A further area of conflict involves the 'double agency' of doctors for both patients and the community. Empowerment of all players is not always possible but is most likely where each party considers and acknowledges power issues. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 238 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 49 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 13% |
| Researcher | 18 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 48 | 20% |
| Unknown | 46 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 29% |
| Social Sciences | 35 | 14% |
| Psychology | 26 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 38 | 16% |
| Unknown | 53 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2021.
All research outputs
#14,730,794
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#205
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,106
of 132,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 132,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them