Cargando…
How general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study
BACKGROUND: The work of general practitioners (GPs) is infused by norms from several movements, of which evidence based medicine, patient-centredness, and virtue ethics are some of the most influential. Their precepts are not clearly reconcilable, and structural factors may limit their application....
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6515645/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31088448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0360-3 |
_version_ | 1783418123038228480 |
---|---|
author | Johnsson, Linus Nordgren, Lena |
author_facet | Johnsson, Linus Nordgren, Lena |
author_sort | Johnsson, Linus |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The work of general practitioners (GPs) is infused by norms from several movements, of which evidence based medicine, patient-centredness, and virtue ethics are some of the most influential. Their precepts are not clearly reconcilable, and structural factors may limit their application. In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework that explains how GPs respond, across different fields of interaction in their daily work, to the pressure exerted by divergent norms. METHODS: Data was generated from unstructured interviews with and observations of sixteen Swedish GPs (who have by definition more than five years of experience after license to practice) and family medicine residents (with less than five years of experience) between 2015 and 2017. Straussian Grounded Theory was used for analysis. RESULTS: We found that GPs’ maxims of action can be characterised in terms of dichotomous responses to demands from four distinct sets of norms, or “voices”: the situation, the self, the system, and the profession. From the interactions between these voices emerge sixteen clusters of maxims of action. Based on the common features of the maxims in each cluster, we have developed a conceptual framework that appears to be rich enough to capture the meaning of the ethical decisions that GPs make in their daily work, yet has a high enough level of abstraction to be helpful when discussing the factors that influence those decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Our four-dimensional model of GPs’ responses to norms is a first step toward a middle-range theory of quality from GPs’ perspective. It brings out the complexity of their practice, reveals tensions that easily remain invisible in more concrete accounts of their actions, and aids the transferability of substantive theories on GPs’ ethical decision making. By explaining the nature of the ethical conflicts that they experience, we provide some clues as to why efforts to improve quality by imposing additional norms on GPs may meet with varying degrees of success. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6515645 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65156452019-05-21 How general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study Johnsson, Linus Nordgren, Lena BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: The work of general practitioners (GPs) is infused by norms from several movements, of which evidence based medicine, patient-centredness, and virtue ethics are some of the most influential. Their precepts are not clearly reconcilable, and structural factors may limit their application. In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework that explains how GPs respond, across different fields of interaction in their daily work, to the pressure exerted by divergent norms. METHODS: Data was generated from unstructured interviews with and observations of sixteen Swedish GPs (who have by definition more than five years of experience after license to practice) and family medicine residents (with less than five years of experience) between 2015 and 2017. Straussian Grounded Theory was used for analysis. RESULTS: We found that GPs’ maxims of action can be characterised in terms of dichotomous responses to demands from four distinct sets of norms, or “voices”: the situation, the self, the system, and the profession. From the interactions between these voices emerge sixteen clusters of maxims of action. Based on the common features of the maxims in each cluster, we have developed a conceptual framework that appears to be rich enough to capture the meaning of the ethical decisions that GPs make in their daily work, yet has a high enough level of abstraction to be helpful when discussing the factors that influence those decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Our four-dimensional model of GPs’ responses to norms is a first step toward a middle-range theory of quality from GPs’ perspective. It brings out the complexity of their practice, reveals tensions that easily remain invisible in more concrete accounts of their actions, and aids the transferability of substantive theories on GPs’ ethical decision making. By explaining the nature of the ethical conflicts that they experience, we provide some clues as to why efforts to improve quality by imposing additional norms on GPs may meet with varying degrees of success. BioMed Central 2019-05-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6515645/ /pubmed/31088448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0360-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Johnsson, Linus Nordgren, Lena How general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study |
title | How general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study |
title_full | How general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study |
title_fullStr | How general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study |
title_full_unstemmed | How general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study |
title_short | How general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study |
title_sort | how general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6515645/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31088448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0360-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT johnssonlinus howgeneralpractitionersdecideonmaximsofactioninresponsetodemandsfromconflictingsetsofnormsagroundedtheorystudy AT nordgrenlena howgeneralpractitionersdecideonmaximsofactioninresponsetodemandsfromconflictingsetsofnormsagroundedtheorystudy |