Supporting, Promoting, Respecting and Advocating: A Scoping Study of Rehabilitation Professionals’ Responses to Patient Autonomy


Background: Autonomy is a central concept in both bioethics and rehabilitation. Bioethics has emphasized autonomy as self-governance and its application in treatment decision-making. In addition to discussing decisional autonomy, rehabilitation also focuses on autonomy as functional independence. In practice, responding to patients with diminished autonomy is an important component of rehabilitation care, but also gives rise to tensions and challenges. Our objective was to better understand the complex and distinctive ways that autonomy is understood and upheld in the context of rehabilitation care by reviewing how autonomy is discussed in the rehabilitation literature. Methods: We conducted a scoping review addressing issues of autonomy in the context of mental and physical rehabilitation. Our process followed three sequential steps. We extracted and analyzed bibliometric information. We then examined how autonomy was defined and conceptualized. Finally, we examined how the articles discussed the roles of rehabilitation health professionals in responding to patient autonomy. Findings: The articles include 16 empirical reports, 17 case studies and 30 theoretical papers. The most common conceptual accounts of autonomy drew upon principlism, rights-based and legal analyses, and relational/social approaches. We identified four broad approaches for responding to patient autonomy: supporting, promoting, respecting and advocating. Conclusion: This review helps clarify some of the ambiguities and conceptual distinctions underlying discussions and practices related to autonomy in rehabilitation. It also draws attention to a wide range of activities that health professionals can undertake with the goal of supporting, promoting, respecting and advocating for patient autonomy in rehabilitation care.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,923

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Patient autonomy: A view from the kitchen.Rita M. Struhkamp - 2005 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8 (1):105-114.
Autonomy and Negatively Informed Consent.Ulrik Kihlbom - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (3):146-9.
Does Shared Decision Making Respect a Patient's Relational Autonomy?Jonathan Lewis - 2019 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 25 (6):1063-1069.
The Evolution of Autonomy.Trevor Stammers - 2015 - The New Bioethics 21 (2):155-163.
The Value of Autonomy in Medical Ethics.Jukka Varelius - 2006 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (3):377-388.
Re-Evaluating Professional Autonomy in Health Care.Henk Ten Have - 2000 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21 (5):503-513.
Autonomy, consent and the law.Sheila McLean - 2010 - New York, N.Y.: Routledge-Cavendish.
Shared decision-making and patient autonomy.Lars Sandman & Christian Munthe - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (4):289-310.


Added to PP

23 (#702,899)

6 months
13 (#219,505)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Dependence and Autonomy in Old Age; An Ethical Framework for Long-Term Care 2nd.[author unknown] - 2008 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (3):347-351.
The Ethics of Enabling Technology.Sven Ove Hansson - 2007 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (3):257-267.
Ethical dimensions in the health professions.Ruth B. Purtilo - 1981 - Philadelphia: Saunders. Edited by Christine K. Cassel.

View all 9 references / Add more references