title: Using Argumentation Theory to Identify the Challenges of Shared Decision-Making when the Doctor and the Patient have a Difference of Opinion.
abstract: This paper aims to identify the challenges in the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. It analyses the preconditions of the resolution of this difference of opinion by using an analytical and normative framework known in the field of argumentation theory as the ideal model of critical discussion. This analysis highlights the communication skills and attitudes that both doctors and patients must apply in a dispute resolution-oriented communication. Questions arise over the methods of empowerment of doctors and patients in these skills and attitudes as the preconditions of SDM. Overall, the paper highlights aspects in which research is needed to design appropriate programmes of training, education and support in order to equip doctors and patients with the means to successfully engage in shared decision-making.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  the authors would like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for funding this project (project number: PDFMP1_132523. Enhancing doctor-patient argumentation through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Insights from a study in the field of chronic pain).
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic Research (SPF) , Nottwil, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Claudia A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Zanini
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic Research (SPF) , Nottwil, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Sara
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rubinelli
keywords: argumentation theory; doctor-patient communication; empowerment; patient’s perspective; shared decision-making