1887
Volume 14, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750

Abstract

Abstract

Shared decision-making has become the ideal for medical decision-making. Given the pivotal role of argumentation within this process, shared decision-making has increasingly been examined through the lens of argumentation theory, particularly pragma-dialectics. This perspective paper outlines the pragma-dialectical contributions to the analysis of shared decision-making and explores the potential of this theory for addressing current and future challenges in medical decision-making. It aims to show that normative argumentation approaches, particularly the pragma-dialectical approach, are crucial for understanding and possibly improving shared decision-making. First, the paper discusses the alignment between shared decision-making and the ideal of a critical discussion, barriers to shared decision-making as violations of discussion rules and higher-order conditions, and the application of the pragma-dialectical approach to complex decision-making scenarios involving patient companions. Second, it considers how the pragma-dialectical approach may be used to confront the emerging issues of medical misinformation and artificial intelligence in medical decision-making.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25025.pil
2025-12-04
2026-01-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jaic.25025.pil.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25025.pil&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Samira, Michelle Cwintal, Yuhui Huang, Pooria Ghadiri, Roland Grad, Dan Poenaru, Genevieve Gore, Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun, France Légaré, and Pierre Pluye
    2022 “Application of artificial intelligence in shared decision making: Scoping review.” JMIR Medical Informatics, 10(8), e36199. 10.2196/36199
    https://doi.org/10.2196/36199 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adelman, Ronald D., Michele G. Greene, and Rita Charon
    1987 “The physician-elderly patient-companion triad in the medical encounter: the development of a conceptual framework and research agenda.” The Gerontologist27(6), 729–34. 10.1093/geront/27.6.729
    https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/27.6.729 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bigi, Sara
    2018 “The role of argumentative strategies in the construction of emergent common ground in a patient-centered approach to the medical encounter.” Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2), 141–156. 10.1075/jaic.18028.big
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18028.big [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2004A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Elwyn, Glyn, Steve Laitner, Angela Coulter, Emma Walker, Paul Watson, Richard Thomson
    2010 “Implementing shared decision making in the NHS.” BMJ 2010;3411: c5146. 10.1136/bmj.c5146
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5146 [Google Scholar]
  7. Engelhardt, Ellen, Arwen H. Pieterse, Anja van der Hout, Hanneke J. C. J. M. de Haes, Judith R. Kroep, Patricia Quarles van Ufford-Mannasse, Johanneke E. A. Portielje, Ellen M. A. Smets, and Anne M. Stiggelbout
    2016 “Use of Implicit Persuasion in Decision Making about Adjuvant Cancer Treatment: A Potential Barrier to Shared Decision Making.” European Journal of Cancer661: 55–66. 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  8. Engelhardt, Ellen G., Arwen H. Pieterse, and Anne M. Stiggelbout
    2018 “Implicit persuasion in medical decision-making: an overview of implicitly steering behaviors and a reflection on explanations for the use of implicitly steering behaviors.” Journal of Argumentation in Context7.21: 209–227. 10.1075/jaic.18032.eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18032.eng [Google Scholar]
  9. Gaalen, Ellen van, and Cyril Rosman
    2023 “Zwanger na medisch advies van een influencer: ‘Eén keer geen condoom en het was raak”. Algemeen Dagblad, retrieved fromhttps://www.ad.nl/gezond/zwanger-na-medisch-advies-van-een-influencer-een-keer-geen-condoom-en-het-was-raak~a7b74cf7/onFebruary 1, 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ilkou, Eleni & Maria Koutraki
    2020 “Symbolic vs sub-symbolic ai methods: Friends or enemies?” InCIKM (Workshops) (Vol.26991). 10.1145/3340531.3414072
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3414072 [Google Scholar]
  11. Karnieli-Miller, Orit, and Zvi Eisikovits
    2009 “Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters.” Social Science & Medicine691: 1–8. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.04.030
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.04.030 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kökciyan, Nadin, Isabel Sassoon, Elizabeth Sklar, Sanjay Modgil, and Simon Parsons
    2021 Applying metalevel argumentation frameworks to support medical decision making. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 36(2), 64–71. 10.1109/MIS.2021.3051420
    https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2021.3051420 [Google Scholar]
  13. Labrie, Nanon
    2012 “Strategic manoeuvring in treatment decision-making discussions: Two cases in point.” Argumentation, 261, 171–199. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9228‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9228-5 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2013 “Strategically eliciting concessions from patients in treatment decision-making discussions.” Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(3), 322–341. 10.1075/jaic.2.3.03lab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.3.03lab [Google Scholar]
  15. Labrie, Nanon H. M.
    2014 For the sake of argument: Considering the role, characteristics and effects of argumentation in general practice consultation. Dissertation Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano.
  16. Laidsaar-Powell, Rebekah C., Phyllis N. Butow, Stella Bu, Cathy Charles, Wendy W. T. Lam, Jesse Jansen, Kirsten McCaffery, Heather L. Shepherd, Martin H. Tattersall, and Ilona Juraskova
    2013 “Physician-patient-companion communication and decision-making: A systematic review of triadic medical consultations.” Patient Education and Counseling91(1), 3–13. 10.1016/j.pec.2012.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Landmark, Anne M. D., Pål Gulbrandsen, and Jan Svennivig
    2015 “Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions.” Journal of Pragmatics781: 54–69. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mostowy, Walter A.
    2020 Explaining opaque AI decisions, Legally. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 35(4), 1291–1330. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27121777
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Pel-Littel, Ruth E., Bianca M. Buurman, Marjolein H. van de Pol, Nida G. Yilmaz, Linda R. Tulner, Mirella M. Minkman, Wilma J. M. Scholte Op Reimer, Glyn Elwyn, and Julia C. M. van Weert
    2019 “Measuring triadic decision making in older patients with multiple chronic conditions: Observer OPTIONMCC.” Patient Education and Counseling102(11), 1969–1976. 10.1016/j.pec.2019.06.020
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.06.020 [Google Scholar]
  20. Pieterse, Arwen H., Anne M. Stiggelbout, and Victor M. Montori
    2019 Shared decision making and the importance of time. Jama, 322(1), 25–26. 10.1001/jama.2019.3785
    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.3785 [Google Scholar]
  21. Pilgram, Roosmaryn, and Lotte van Poppel
    2021 “De derde partij in shared decision making: De rol van extra participanten in discussies tussen zorgprofessionals en patiënten.” Tijdschrift voor taalbeheersing, 43(2), 139–175. 10.5117/TVT2021.2.004.PILG
    https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2021.2.004.PILG [Google Scholar]
  22. Pilgram, Roosmaryn, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2018 “A pragma-dialectical perspective on obstacles to shared decision making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7(2), 161–176. 10.1075/jaic.18027.pil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18027.pil [Google Scholar]
  23. Poppel, Lotte van, and Roosmaryn Pilgram
    2025 “The argumentative role of patient companions in (shared) decision-making.” Patient Education and Counseling, 1331, 108623. 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108623
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2024.108623 [Google Scholar]
  24. RTL Nieuws
    RTL Nieuws 2023 “Huisarts waarschuwt voor bizarre claims influencers: “En patiënten luisteren ernaar”.” Retrieved fromhttps://www.rtl.nl/rtl-home/artikel/5397512/huisarts-waarschuwt-voor-ongefundeerde-gezondheidsclaims-influencersonFebruary 1, 2025.
  25. Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca, and Dima Mohammed
    2012 “Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making.” Argumentation in Context1 (1):19–32. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.03moh [Google Scholar]
  26. Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca, and Jean H. M. Wagemans
    2019 “Een pragma-dialectische reconstructie van de discussiebijdragen van arts en patiënt in ‘shared decision-making’.” Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 41(1), 273–285. 10.5117/TVT2019.1.019.SNOE
    https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2019.1.019.SNOE [Google Scholar]
  27. Stiggelbout, Anne M., Arwen H. Pieterse, and Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes
    2015 “Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice.” Patient Education and Counselling98(10), 1172–1179. 10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.022 [Google Scholar]
  28. Zanini, Claudia A., & Sara Rubinelli
    2012 “Using argumentation theory to identify the challenges of shared decisionmaking when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. Journal of Public Health Research1(2), 165–169. 10.4081/jphr.2012.e26
    https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2012.e26 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ziebland, Sue, Alison Chapple, and Julie Evans
    2014 “Barriers to shared decisions in them most serious cancers: A qualitative study of patients with pancreatic cancer treated in the UK.” Health Expectations181: 3302–3312. 10.1111/hex.12319
    https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12319 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.25025.pil
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): medical argumentation; pragma-dialectics; shared decision-making
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error