The power paradox of patient-centred care in Chinese community health: Towards a conceptualisation

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Bo Li
{"title":"The power paradox of patient-centred care in Chinese community health: Towards a conceptualisation","authors":"Bo Li","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Patient-centred care (PCC) is widely heralded as a transformative healthcare paradigm, designed to prioritise patients' unique needs, preferences, and values in clinical decision-making. By potentially shifting away from the historically provider-centric model, PCC aims to empower patients as autonomous, active participants. However, critical questions remain: Does PCC genuinely dismantle power asymmetries, or does it merely serve as rhetoric subtly reinforcing existing hierarchies under the guise of empowerment? This study examines this power paradox—the disconnect between PCC's rhetorical positioning and its superficial implementation—through Steven Lukes' three dimensions of power, focusing on China's community healthcare system, where patient-centred ideals are strongly advocated. A year-long non-participant observation at a major community health centre in Shenzhen, complemented by semi-structured interviews with 16 general practitioners (GPs) and 18 hypertensive patients (HPs), informed an iterative thematic analysis. The analysis identified three paradoxes that complicate PCC's vision of patient empowerment. First, protective authority demonstrates how GPs' protective intentions manifest as directive behaviours, fostering dependency and limiting patient agency. Second, framing authority reveals how organisational norms, policies, and clinical expectations constrain patient choice, prioritising compliance over autonomy. Lastly, internalised compliance highlights PCC's ideological power, where HPs internalise adherence as integral to their identity as ‘good’ patients, embedding deference to medical authority within their sense of well-being. These findings offer critical insights into PCC's power paradox, questioning its theoretical capacity to redress entrenched provider-patient power imbalances. Addressing these challenges necessitates systemic reforms and shifts in clinical practice to genuinely prioritise patient-centredness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"371 ","pages":"Article 117883"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","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/S0277953625002126","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

Patient-centred care (PCC) is widely heralded as a transformative healthcare paradigm, designed to prioritise patients' unique needs, preferences, and values in clinical decision-making. By potentially shifting away from the historically provider-centric model, PCC aims to empower patients as autonomous, active participants. However, critical questions remain: Does PCC genuinely dismantle power asymmetries, or does it merely serve as rhetoric subtly reinforcing existing hierarchies under the guise of empowerment? This study examines this power paradox—the disconnect between PCC's rhetorical positioning and its superficial implementation—through Steven Lukes' three dimensions of power, focusing on China's community healthcare system, where patient-centred ideals are strongly advocated. A year-long non-participant observation at a major community health centre in Shenzhen, complemented by semi-structured interviews with 16 general practitioners (GPs) and 18 hypertensive patients (HPs), informed an iterative thematic analysis. The analysis identified three paradoxes that complicate PCC's vision of patient empowerment. First, protective authority demonstrates how GPs' protective intentions manifest as directive behaviours, fostering dependency and limiting patient agency. Second, framing authority reveals how organisational norms, policies, and clinical expectations constrain patient choice, prioritising compliance over autonomy. Lastly, internalised compliance highlights PCC's ideological power, where HPs internalise adherence as integral to their identity as ‘good’ patients, embedding deference to medical authority within their sense of well-being. These findings offer critical insights into PCC's power paradox, questioning its theoretical capacity to redress entrenched provider-patient power imbalances. Addressing these challenges necessitates systemic reforms and shifts in clinical practice to genuinely prioritise patient-centredness.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信