The interpersonal basis of stereotype-relevant self-views

The salience of gender in the illness experiences and care preferences of people with Parkinson's disease

RATIONALE

In recent years, interest in sex characteristics and gender dimensions of Parkinson's disease (PD) has increased. Yet, much remains to be understood about how gender-related aspects specifically impact the illness and experiences of care in persons living with PD.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the salience of gender-related aspects in the illness experiences and care provision preferences of people with PD.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative study including semi-structured life story interviews was conducted with men and women living with PD in the Netherlands. Between September 2020 and February 2021, forty people with PD (20 men and 20 women) participated in digital interviews of which thirty-one (18 men and 13 women) were included in the thematic analyses for this specific study.

RESULTS

Overall, most participants did not consider gender-related aspects salient towards their illness experiences. However, when prompted, a number of participants described several stereotypical views about gender as related to the visibility of PD, emotional experiences, help seeking, role patterns and physical appearance. While most men and women with PD did not express specific gender-related preferences for their healthcare providers, those that did, all preferred women as healthcare providers. These preferences were generally related to attributed feminine traits which are considered relevant in routine, particularly sensitive, physical examinations of people with PD.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that although every person has a gender identity, the salience attributed to gender varies with illness experiences and in care provision preferences between people with PD. These findings highlight the need for precise and personalized methodologies to capture more nuanced insights into the impact of gender dimensions on PD. Furthermore, drivers behind gender-related preferences in care provision are multifactorial and warrant further investigation among people with PD.

Stereotyping of medical disability claimants' communication behaviour by physicians: towards more focused education for social insurance physicians

BACKGROUND

Physicians who hold medical disability assessment interviews (social insurance physicians) are probably influenced by stereotypes of claimants, especially because they have limited time available and they have to make complicated decisions. Because little is known about the influences of stereotyping on assessment interviews, the objectives of this paper were to qualitatively investigate: (1) the content of stereotypes used to classify claimants with regard to the way in which they communicate; (2) the origins of such stereotypes; (3) the advantages and disadvantages of stereotyping in assessment interviews; and (4) how social insurance physicians minimise the undesirable influences of negative stereotyping.

METHODS

Data were collected during three focus group meetings with social insurance physicians who hold medical disability assessment interviews with sick-listed employees (i.e. claimants). The participants also completed a questionnaire about demographic characteristics. The data were qualitatively analysed in Atlas.ti in four steps, according to the grounded theory and the principle of constant comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 22 social insurance physicians participated. Based on their responses, a claimant's communication was classified with regard to the degree of respect and acceptance in the physician-claimant relationship, and the degree of dominance. Most of the social insurance physicians reported that they classify claimants in general groups, and use these classifications to adapt their own communication behaviour. Moreover, the social insurance physicians revealed that their stereotypes originate from information in the claimants' files and first impressions. The main advantages of stereotyping were that this provides a framework for the assessment interview, it can save time, and it is interesting to check whether the stereotype is correct. Disadvantages of stereotyping were that the stereotypes often prove incorrect, they do not give the complete picture, and the claimant's behaviour changes constantly. Social insurance physicians try to minimise the undesirable influences of stereotypes by being aware of counter transference, making formal assessments, staying neutral to the best of their ability, and being compassionate.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that social insurance physicians adapt their communication style to the degree of respect and dominance of claimants in the physician-claimant relationship, but they try to minimise the undesirable influences of stereotypes in assessment interviews. It is recommended that this issue should be addressed in communication skills training.