Rapid uptake of telehealth technologies has shifted clinician–patient relationships, a well-studied topic of sociological inquiry. The purpose of this dimensional analysis study was to understand the symbolic interaction of clinicians and patients within virtual supportive cancer care. Seventeen clinicians, eighteen patients, and three care partners receiving or providing care at a multi-site cancer center in the United States participated in interviews. Our analysis of supportive cancer care experiences reveals a key tension: clinicians need to rely on patients in order to share clinical tasks in a virtual care setting but can be reluctant to do so. We posit that dimming the light on cancer is a process that enables clinicians to overcome their reluctance to engage in clinician–patient task sharing by strengthening the relationship. Taken together, these findings reconceptualize the symbolic interaction of the clinician–patient relationship and highlight opportunities to actualize models of relationship-centered virtual care. We discuss implications for clinical practice, ethical relational care, and the literature on clinician–patient relationships and trust.
ArcherS.HolchP.ArmesJ.CalmanL.FosterC.GelcichS.MacLennanS. J.AbsolomK. (2020). “No turning back” psycho-oncology in the time of COVID-19: Insights from a survey of UK professionals. Psycho-Oncology, 29(9), 1430–1435. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5486
2.
AroraN. K. (2003). Interacting with cancer patients: The significance of physicians’ communication behavior. Social Science and Medicine, 57(5), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00449-5
3.
AsareM.FakhouryC.ThompsonN.CulakovaE.KlecknerA. S.AdunlinG.ReifensteinK.BenavidezG. A.KamenC. S. (2020). The patient-provider relationship: Predictors of Black/African American cancer patients’ perceived quality of care and health outcomes. Health Communication, 35(10), 1289–1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1625006
4.
BeachM. C.KerulyJ.MooreR. D. (2006). Is the quality of the patient-provider relationship associated with better adherence and health outcomes for patients with HIV?Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(6), 661–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00399.x
5.
BlumerH. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.
6.
BoyerC. A.LutfeyK. E. (2010). Examining critical health policy issues within and beyond the clinical encounter: Patient-provider relationships and help-seeking behaviors. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1_suppl), S80–S93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383489
7.
BrennanN.BarnesR.CalnanM.CorriganO.DieppeP.EntwistleV. (2013). Trust in the health-care provider-patient relationship: Ansystematic mapping review of the evidence base. International Journal for Quality in Health Care: Journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 25(6), 682–688. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzt063
8.
CalnanM.RoweR. (2006). Researching trust relations in health care: Conceptual and methodological challenges--Introduction. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 20(5), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260610701759
9.
CaltonB. A.RabowM. W.BranaganL.Dionne-OdomJ. N.Parker OliverD.BakitasM. A.FratkinM. D.LustbaderD.JonesC. A.RitchieC. S. (2019). Top ten tips palliative care clinicians should know about telepalliative care. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 22(8), 981–985. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2019.0278
10.
CerierE.BealE. W.ChakedisJ.ChenQ.ParedesA.SunS.CloydJ. M.PawlikT. M. (2018). Patient-provider relationships and health outcomes among hepatopancreatobiliary patients. The Journal of Surgical Research, 228, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.026
11.
Chamberlain-SalaunJ.MillsJ.UsherK. (2013). Linking symbolic interactionism and grounded theory methods in a research design: From Corbin and Strauss’ assumptions to action. SAGE Open, 3(3), 215824401350575. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013505757
ChuaI. S.JacksonV.KamdarM. (2020). Webside manner during the COVID-19 pandemic: Maintaining human connection during virtual visits. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 23(11), 1507–1509. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2020.0298
14.
ConlonC.TimonenV.Elliott-O’DareC.O’KeeffeS.FoleyG. (2020). Confused about theoretical sampling? Engaging theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies. Qualitative Health Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319899139
15.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2015). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.
EveredJ.AndersenL.FoxwellA.IroegbuC.WhitneyC. (2022). The impact and implications of virtual supportive cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Integrating patient and clinician perspectives. Supportive Care in Cancer: Official Journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 30(12), 9945–9952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07393-9
18.
FarinE.NaglM. (2013). The patient-physician relationship in patients with breast cancer: Influence on changes in quality of life after rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 22(2), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0151-5
19.
GiddensA. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Polity Press.
20.
GlaserB. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
21.
GraneheimU.LundmanB. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
HaberS. G.WenskyS. G.McCallN. T. (2017). Reducing inpatient hospital and emergency room utilization among nursing home residents. Journal of Aging and Health, 29(3), 510–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264316641074
24.
HalldorsdottirS. (2008). The dynamics of the nurse–patient relationship: Introduction of a synthesized theory from the patient’s perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 22(4), 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00568.x
25.
HandbergC.ThorneS.MidtgaardJ.NielsenC. V.LomborgK. (2015). Revisiting symbolic interactionism as a theoretical framework beyond the grounded theory tradition. Qualitative Health Research, 25(8), 1023–1032. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314554231
26.
HaveP. (1991). In BodenD.ZimmermanB. (eds.), Talk and social structure. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 138–163). Polity Press.
27.
JohansenM. L.HoltedahlK. A.DavidsenA. S.RudebeckC. E. (2012). “I deal with the small things”: The doctor-patient relationship and professional identity in GPs’ stories of cancer care. Health (United Kingdom), 16(6), 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459312438565
28.
KoolsS.McCarthyM.DurhamR.RobrechtL. (1996). Dimensional analysis: Broadening the conception of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600302
29.
LeeC. T.VanderwaterC.PickrellW.WongJ. C. (2020). The association among cancer patients’ collaboration with their healthcare providers, self-management and well-being during radiotherapy: An observational, cross-sectional survey. European Journal of Cancer Care, 29(6), e13308. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13308
30.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
31.
MaddiganS. L.MajumdarS. R.JohnsonJ. A. (2005). Understanding the complex associations between patient–provider relationships, self-care behaviours, and health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetes: A structural equation modeling approach. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1489–1500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-0586-z
32.
MåseideP. (1991). Possibly abusive, often benign, and always necessary. On power and domination in medical practice. Sociology of Health and Illness, 13(4), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep10843655
33.
MillikenP. J.SchreiberR. (2012). Examining the nexus between grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(5), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100510
34.
MorganB. (2020). A dimensional analysis of inner strength in people aging with serious illness. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 60(1), 286–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.196
MorseJ. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501
37.
MurrayB.McCroneS. (2015). An integrative review of promoting trust in the patient-primary care provider relationship. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12502
38.
NolanM. R.DaviesS.BrownJ.KeadyJ.NolanJ. (2004). Beyond “person-centred” care: A new vision for gerontological nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13(3 A), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00926.x
39.
PappasY.SealeC. (2009). The opening phase of telemedicine consultations: An analysis of interaction. Social Science and Medicine, 68(7), 1229–1237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.011
40.
PellegrinoE. D. (1979). Toward a reconstruction of medical morality: The primacy of the act of profession and the fact of illness. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 4(1), 32–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/4.1.32
41.
Phillips-SalimiC. R.HaaseJ. E.KookenW. C. (2012). Connectedness in the context of patient-provider relationships: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(1), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05763.x
42.
PotterS. J.McKinlayJ. B. (2005). From a relationship to encounter: An examination of longitudinal and lateral dimensions in the doctor-patient relationship. Social Science and Medicine (1982), 61(2), 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.067
43.
SamuelC. A.MbahO.SchaalJ.EngE.BlackK. Z.BakerS.EllisK. R.GuerrabF.JordanL.LightfootA. F.RobertsonL. B.YongueC. M.CykertS. (2020). The role of patient-physician relationship on health-related quality of life and pain in cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer: Official Journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 28(6), 2615–2626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05070-y
44.
Sansom-DalyU. M.BradfordN. (2020). Grappling with the “human” problem hiding behind the technology: Telehealth during and beyond COVID-19. Psycho-Oncology, 29(9), 1404–1408. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5462
45.
SchatzmanL. (1991). Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative approach to the grounding of theory in qualitative research. In MainesD. R. (Ed.), Social Organization and Social Process, p. (303–314).
46.
SmithS. D.NicolK. M.DevereuxJ.CornbleetM. A. (1999). Encounters with doctors: Quantity and quality. Palliative Medicine, 13(3), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921699668267830
47.
Sousa-DuarteF.BrownP.MendesA. M. (2020). Healthcare professionals’ trust in patients: A review of the empirical and theoretical literature. Sociology Compass, 14(10), e12828. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12828
48.
ThomasE.MagilvyJ. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(2), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x
49.
ThorneS. E.KuoM.ArmstrongE.-A.McPhersonG.HarrisS. R.HislopT. G. (2005). “Being known”: Patients’ perspectives of the dynamics of human connection in cancer care. Psycho-Oncology, 14(10), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.945
50.
ThorneS. E.RobinsonC. A. (1988). Health care relationships: The chronic illness perspective. Research in Nursing and Health, 11(5), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770110504
51.
TimmermansS. (2020). The engaged patient: The relevance of patient–physician communication for twenty-first-century health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 61(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146520943514
52.
van der LeeM. L.SchellekensM. P. J. (2020). Bridging the distance: Continuing psycho-oncological care via video-consults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psycho-Oncology, 29(9), 1421–1423. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5468
53.
WhitneyC.CanaleE.ZinckL. (2022). Toward transformative engagement: Ethical and effective clinical-research partnerships in cancer care nursing. Cancer Care Research Online, 2(3), e021. https://doi.org/10.1097/CR9.0000000000000021
54.
WhitneyC.EveredJ. A. (2022). The qualitative research distress protocol: A participant-centered tool for navigating distress during data collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 160940692211103. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221110317
WilkA. S.PlattJ. E. (2016). Measuring physicians’ trust: A scoping review with implications for public policy. Social Science and Medicine (1982), 165, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.039
57.
WylieJ. L.Wagenfeld-HeintzE. (2004). Development of relationship-centered care. Journal for Healthcare Quality: Official Publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality, 26(1), 14–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.2004.tb00467.x
