Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Heed or disregard a cancer patient's critical blogging?: An experimental study of two different framing strategies
Karolinska Inst, Stockholm Ctr Healthcare Eth, S-17177 Stockholm, Sweden..
Karolinska Univ Hosp, Stockholm, Sweden..
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Experimental and Clinical Oncology.
Karolinska Inst, Stockholm Ctr Healthcare Eth, S-17177 Stockholm, Sweden..
2016 (English)In: BMC Medical Ethics, ISSN 1472-6939, E-ISSN 1472-6939, Vol. 17, 30Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: We have examined healthcare staff attitudes of toward a blogging cancer patient who publishes critical posts about her treatment and their possible effect on patient-staff relationships and treatment decisions.

Methods: We used two versions of a questionnaire containing a vignette based on a modified real case involving a 39-year-old cancer patient who complained on her blog about how she was encountered and the treatment she received. Initially she was not offered a new, and expensive treatment, which might have influenced her perception of further encounters. In one version of the vignette, the team decides to put extra effort into both encounters and offers the expensive new cancer treatment. In the other version, the team decides to follow the clinic's routine to the letter. Subsequently, blog postings became either positive or negative in tone. We also divided participants into value-neutral and value-influenced groups (regarding personal values) by asking how their trust in healthcare would be affected if the team's suggestion were followed.

Results: A total of 56 % (95 % CI: 51-61) of the respondents faced with a team decision to 'do something-extra' in encounters would act in accordance with this ambition. Concerning treatment, 32 % (95 % CI: 28-38) would follow the team's decision to offer a new and expensive treatment. A large majority of those who received the "follow-routine" version agreed to do so in encountering [94 % (95 % CI: 91-97)]. Similar proportions were found regarding treatment [86 % (95 % CI: 82-90)]. A total of 83 % (95 % CI: 76-91) of the value-neutral participants who received the "do-something-extra" version stated that they would act as the team suggested regarding encounters, while 57 % (95 % CI: 47-67) would do so in regard to treatment. Among the value-influenced participants who received the "do-something-extra" version, 45 % (95 % CI: 38-51) stated that they would make an extra effort to accommodate the patient and her needs, while the proportion for treatment was 22 % (95 % CI: 16-27). Among those who had received the "follow-routine" version, a large majority agreed, and no difference was indicated between the value-neutral and the value-influenced participants.

Conclusion: The present study indicates that healthcare staff is indeed influenced by reading a patient's critical blog entries, largely regarding encounters, but also concerning treatment is concerned. Value-neutral healthcare personnel seem to exhibit a pragmatic attitude and be more inclined to heed and respond to a patient whose criticism may well be warranted. The study also indicates that healthcare staff is partly positive or negative to future blogging patients depending on how the issue has been framed. For future research we suggest as a bold hypothesis that the phrase "clinical routine" might conceal power aspects masquerading as adopted ethical principles.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 17, 30
Keyword [en]
Blogging patients, Priority-setting, Decision-making, Social status, Tacit values
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-302250DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0115-3ISI: 000376366200001PubMedID: 27207478OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-302250DiVA: diva2:957263
Funder
Swedish Research CouncilForte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, 2014 - 4024
Available from: 2016-09-01 Created: 2016-08-31 Last updated: 2016-09-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(457 kB)14 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 457 kBChecksum SHA-512
c72f8d2e1c95818ae47a1360bd9635337024851745d72f05b64c06916b363e61b66d37d1c685511539def69be0556ed77de73993fd9d326b33977b2708b31977
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lindskog, Magnus
By organisation
Experimental and Clinical Oncology
In the same journal
BMC Medical Ethics
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 14 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 42 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link