April 4-6, 2024 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Innovations in Health Communication
Innovations in Health Communication
Abstract: Arguing With Doctors: The Patient’s Perspective
Medical argumentation (that is, the exchange of reasons to reach a conclusion) is drawing increasing attention among researchers. A patient must have confidence in their ability to effectively seek and provide information and to problem-solve in a successful, satisfying, and collaborative fashion with their doctors if they are to achieve their best possible health outcomes.
This study was designed to improve our understanding of the ways in which people argue with their healthcare providers about health-related topics. Data were collected through the Prolific crowd-source research platform. Participants living in the United States (n = 583) were asked to either remember (n = 480) or imagine (n = 103) “a disagreement or a time you wanted to disagree” with a doctor about a health issue. Participants were roughly split by gender (n = 257 male, n = 266 female, n = 20 other or prefer not to say), largely White (n = 376), educated (60.1% with either a 2-year degree or higher), employed (19.7% part time and 53.4% full time), and had a median age of 35.0 years old.
Initial analyses reveal that participants generally viewed their disagreements with their doctors as being: appropriate, non-destructive, and successful. In terms of argumentation strategies, participants reported that they both sought and provided information in the interaction, avoided aggressive behavior, and took a more deliberative or inquiry-based approach to the conflict.
A number of gender differences were identified, with women being less likely to view their doctors as expert, trustworthy, or as having goodwill. Women were also less likely to report taking a persuasive, negotiating, deliberative, or inquiry-based strategy with their doctors. However, women were more likely to perceive the disagreement as appropriate. Neither race nor level of education showed noticeable effects on participants’ perceptions of their doctors or the conflict itself.
Age showed positive correlations with participants’ perceptions of their doctor’s expertise, trustworthiness, and goodwill, but had few significant correlations with perceptions of the argument or with approaches to arguing. Participant perceptions of the conflict’s appropriateness, however, were positively correlated with their perceptions of their own success as well as their use of persuasive, information-giving, and inquiry strategies. Appropriateness perceptions were also negatively correlated with perceptions of the conflict as destructive.
Finally, there were a number of notable differences between participant reports of imagined versus remembered conflicts, suggesting that patients imagine conflicts with their doctors unrealistically. Participants imagined doctors to be more expert, trustworthy, and as having greater goodwill than doctors were perceived to be after a remembered conflict. Participants also imagined that conflicts would be less appropriate but also less destructive than the remembered conflicts were perceived to be. Participants imagined that the conflict would be more resolvable, that they would give more reasons, be more persuasive, be more negotiating, and be more deliberative in their conflicts than the remembered conflicts were reported as being.
The paper presents these and further analyses as well as implications for improving doctor-patient communication and problem-solving.
This study was designed to improve our understanding of the ways in which people argue with their healthcare providers about health-related topics. Data were collected through the Prolific crowd-source research platform. Participants living in the United States (n = 583) were asked to either remember (n = 480) or imagine (n = 103) “a disagreement or a time you wanted to disagree” with a doctor about a health issue. Participants were roughly split by gender (n = 257 male, n = 266 female, n = 20 other or prefer not to say), largely White (n = 376), educated (60.1% with either a 2-year degree or higher), employed (19.7% part time and 53.4% full time), and had a median age of 35.0 years old.
Initial analyses reveal that participants generally viewed their disagreements with their doctors as being: appropriate, non-destructive, and successful. In terms of argumentation strategies, participants reported that they both sought and provided information in the interaction, avoided aggressive behavior, and took a more deliberative or inquiry-based approach to the conflict.
A number of gender differences were identified, with women being less likely to view their doctors as expert, trustworthy, or as having goodwill. Women were also less likely to report taking a persuasive, negotiating, deliberative, or inquiry-based strategy with their doctors. However, women were more likely to perceive the disagreement as appropriate. Neither race nor level of education showed noticeable effects on participants’ perceptions of their doctors or the conflict itself.
Age showed positive correlations with participants’ perceptions of their doctor’s expertise, trustworthiness, and goodwill, but had few significant correlations with perceptions of the argument or with approaches to arguing. Participant perceptions of the conflict’s appropriateness, however, were positively correlated with their perceptions of their own success as well as their use of persuasive, information-giving, and inquiry strategies. Appropriateness perceptions were also negatively correlated with perceptions of the conflict as destructive.
Finally, there were a number of notable differences between participant reports of imagined versus remembered conflicts, suggesting that patients imagine conflicts with their doctors unrealistically. Participants imagined doctors to be more expert, trustworthy, and as having greater goodwill than doctors were perceived to be after a remembered conflict. Participants also imagined that conflicts would be less appropriate but also less destructive than the remembered conflicts were perceived to be. Participants imagined that the conflict would be more resolvable, that they would give more reasons, be more persuasive, be more negotiating, and be more deliberative in their conflicts than the remembered conflicts were reported as being.
The paper presents these and further analyses as well as implications for improving doctor-patient communication and problem-solving.