Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making

Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca; Mohammed, Dima

doi:10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh

Article published In: Argumentation and Health
Edited by Sara Rubinelli and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 1:1] 2012
► pp. 19–32

Get fulltext from our e-platform

Download PDF

Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making

A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans | University of Amsterdam

Dima Mohammed

Published online: 27 February 2012

https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh

In this paper it is first investigated to what extent the institutional goal and basic principles of shared decision making are compatible with the aim and rules for critical discussion. Next, some techniques that doctors may use to present their own treatment preferences strategically in a shared decision making process are discussed and evaluated both from the perspective of the ideal of shared decision making and from that of critical discussion.

Keywords: shared decision making, critical discussion, strategic maneuvering, doctor-patient consultation, treatment preference

Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Order by:

van Poppel, Lotte & Roosmaryn Pilgram

2025. The argumentative role of patient companions in (shared) decision-making. Patient Education and Counseling 133 ► pp. 108623 ff.

Duarte, Antonio

2024. Epidemiology of Fallacies. Argumentation 38:3 ► pp. 329 ff.

van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen & Nanon Labrie

2021. Argumentation between Doctors and Patients,

Akkermans, Aranka, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon Labrie, Inge Henselmans & Hanneke van Laarhoven

2018. The stereotypicality of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer. Journal of Argumentation in Context 7:2 ► pp. 181 ff.

Pilgram, Roosmaryn & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans

2018. A pragma-dialectical perspective on obstacles to shared decision-making. Journal of Argumentation in Context 7:2 ► pp. 161 ff.

Vasilyeva, Alena L.

2017. Strategic maneuvering in dispute mediation. Argumentation and Advocacy 53:3 ► pp. 234 ff.

Labrie, Nanon H. M. & Peter J. Schulz

2015. The Effects of General Practitioners’ Use of Argumentation to Support Their Treatment Advice: Results of an Experimental Study Using Video-Vignettes. Health Communication 30:10 ► pp. 951 ff.

Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. & J. H. M. Wagemans

2015. Reasonableness in Context: Taking into Account Institutional Conventions in the Pragma-Dialectical Evaluation of Argumentative Discourse. In Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory [Argumentation Library, 28], ► pp. 217 ff.

Zanini, Claudia, Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini, Fabiola Atzeni, Manuela Di Franco & Sara Rubinelli

2015. Building bridges between doctors and patients: the design and pilot evaluation of a training session in argumentation for chronic pain experts. BMC Medical Education 15:1

Labrie, Nanon & Peter J. Schulz

2014. Does Argumentation Matter? A Systematic Literature Review on the Role of Argumentation in Doctor–Patient Communication. Health Communication 29:10 ► pp. 996 ff.

Labrie, Nanon & Peter J. Schulz

2015. Quantifying Doctors’ Argumentation in General Practice Consultation Through Content Analysis: Measurement Development and Preliminary Results. Argumentation 29:1 ► pp. 33 ff.

Rubinelli, Sara

2013. Rational versus unreasonable persuasion in doctor–patient communication: A normative account. Patient Education and Counseling 92:3 ► pp. 296 ff.

Rubinelli, Sara

2013. Argumentation as Rational Persuasion in Doctor-Patient Communication. Philosophy & Rhetoric 46:4 ► pp. 550 ff.

[no author supplied]

2022. Argumentative Style [Argumentation in Context, 20],

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.