{"title":"Sources and processes of social influence on health-related choices: A systematic review based on a social-interdependent choice paradigm","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Most choices in healthcare are not made in social isolation. However, current econometric models treat patients' preferences as the sole determinants of their choices.</div><div>Through the lens of sociology and medical sociology theories, this paper presents a systematic literature review of identifiable social influences on patients’ choices, serving as a first step in developing a social-interdependent choice paradigm.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Following the PRISMA guideline and using nine databases, we identified the individual agents or groups involved in health-related choices, the functional content through which social relationships influence patients, and the choice constructs affected by these processes. From 9036 screened articles, we selected 208 to develop an analytical framework connecting social relationships with choice constructs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Social influences predominantly come from family, friends, specialized physicians, and general practitioners. We decomposed the functional content of social relationships into functions and contents. Dyadic interactions and expert knowledge were prominent functions, followed by social control. Prescriptive and informational contents were prevalent, followed by instrumental and emotional ones. Expert knowledge and social norms aligned with prescriptive and informational signals, while dyadic interactions provide emotional and instrumental signals. Reference points for social norms included friends, coworkers, and patients. Social relationships primarily impact which alternatives are evaluated, followed by alternative evaluation strategies and goal selection. Distinctions between medical domains and dimensions emerged, highlighting how the medical area conditions the social influence process.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This systematic review presents a comprehensive framework that elucidates the social influence process in healthcare patient decision-making. By detailing the functional content of social relationships into functions and contents and linking these components to the elements of the choice process, we created a structured approach to understanding how social relationships impact patient choices. This will facilitate the systematic integration of social relationships into econometric models of patient choice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624008141","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Most choices in healthcare are not made in social isolation. However, current econometric models treat patients' preferences as the sole determinants of their choices.
Through the lens of sociology and medical sociology theories, this paper presents a systematic literature review of identifiable social influences on patients’ choices, serving as a first step in developing a social-interdependent choice paradigm.
Methods
Following the PRISMA guideline and using nine databases, we identified the individual agents or groups involved in health-related choices, the functional content through which social relationships influence patients, and the choice constructs affected by these processes. From 9036 screened articles, we selected 208 to develop an analytical framework connecting social relationships with choice constructs.
Results
Social influences predominantly come from family, friends, specialized physicians, and general practitioners. We decomposed the functional content of social relationships into functions and contents. Dyadic interactions and expert knowledge were prominent functions, followed by social control. Prescriptive and informational contents were prevalent, followed by instrumental and emotional ones. Expert knowledge and social norms aligned with prescriptive and informational signals, while dyadic interactions provide emotional and instrumental signals. Reference points for social norms included friends, coworkers, and patients. Social relationships primarily impact which alternatives are evaluated, followed by alternative evaluation strategies and goal selection. Distinctions between medical domains and dimensions emerged, highlighting how the medical area conditions the social influence process.
Conclusion
This systematic review presents a comprehensive framework that elucidates the social influence process in healthcare patient decision-making. By detailing the functional content of social relationships into functions and contents and linking these components to the elements of the choice process, we created a structured approach to understanding how social relationships impact patient choices. This will facilitate the systematic integration of social relationships into econometric models of patient choice.
期刊介绍:
Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.