Ageism among physicians, nurses, and social workers: findings from a qualitative study
- 2.6k Downloads
This study investigated ageism among healthcare professionals in various therapeutic settings in Israel. Using a qualitative approach, the current study aimed to examine similarities and differences across healthcare disciplines. Three focus groups were conducted with physicians, nurses, and social workers. Data from each focus group were analyzed separately, and then commonalities and differences across the groups were evaluated. Three main themes relating to older adults emerged from the data. The first theme pertains to perceived difficulties that healthcare professionals experience in working with older adults and their family members; the second focuses on invisibility and discriminatory communication patterns; and the third theme relates to provision of inappropriate care to older adults. Similarities and differences across the three disciplines were found. The differences related mainly to the examples provided for manifestations of ageism in the healthcare system. Provision of inadequate treatment to older adults due to their age appeared to be the most complex theme, and is discussed at length in the Discussion. Briefly, the complexity stems from the fact that although some behaviors can be clearly described as inappropriate and undesirable, other behaviors such as avoidance of invasive medical procedures for older patients raise ethical dilemmas. Potentially, avoidance of invasive medical treatment can be perceived as compassionate care rather than as undertreatment due to ageist perceptions. A related dilemma, i.e., longevity versus quality-of-life, is also discussed in light of the finding that the balance of these two aspects changes as patients grow old.
KeywordsAgeism Physicians Nurses Social workers Qualitative research Focus groups
The study was funded by the Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research [#10/102/a]. The study is partially supported by the COST Action IS1402.
- Berg-Weger M (2012) Social work and social welfare: an invitation, 3rd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Covinsky KE, Fuller JD, Yaffe K, Johnston CB, Hamel MB, Lynn J, Teno JM, Phillips RS (2000) Communication and decision-making in seriously ill patients: findings of the SUPPORT project. The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:178–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Creswell JW (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Cuddy AJC, Norton MI, Fiske ST (2005) This old stereotype: the pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. J Soc Issues 6:265–283Google Scholar
- Greenberg J, Schimel J, Martens A (2004) Ageism: denying the face of the future. In: Nelson T (ed) Ageism: stereotypes and prejudice against older persons. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 27–48Google Scholar
- Greene M, Adelman R, Rizzo C (1996) Problems in communication between physicians and older patients. J Geriatr Psychiatr 29:13–32Google Scholar
- Palmore EB (1999) Ageism: negative and positive, 2nd edn. Springer Publishing Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Pidgeon N, Henwood K (1996) Grounded theory: practical implementation. In: Richardson JTE (ed) Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. BPS Books, Leicester, pp 86–101Google Scholar
- Rosen B, Merkur S (2009) Israel: health system review. Health Syst Transit 11(2):1–226Google Scholar
- Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and technique. Sage Publications Inc, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Wilkinson JA, Ferraro KF (2002) Thirty years of ageism research. In: Nelson TD (ed) Ageism: stereotyping and prejudice against older adults. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 339–358Google Scholar