Literature DB >> 19740089

Deliberation before determination: the definition and evaluation of good decision making.

Glyn Elwyn1, Talya Miron-Shatz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In this article, we examine definitions of suggested approaches to measure the concept of good decisions, highlight the ways in which they converge, and explain why we have concerns about their emphasis on post-hoc estimations and post-decisional outcomes, their prescriptive concept of knowledge, and their lack of distinction between the process of deliberation, and the act of decision determination.
BACKGROUND: There has been a steady trend to involve patients in decision making tasks in clinical practice, part of a shift away from paternalism towards the concept of informed choice. An increased understanding of the uncertainties that exist in medicine, arising from a weak evidence base and, in addition, the stochastic nature of outcomes at the individual level, have contributed to shifting the responsibility for decision making from physicians to patients. This led to increasing use of decision support and communication methods, with the ultimate aim of improving decision making by patients. Interest has therefore developed in attempting to define good decision making and in the development of measurement approaches.
METHOD: We pose and reflect whether decisions can be judged good or not, and, if so, how this goodness might be evaluated.
RESULTS: We hypothesize that decisions cannot be measured by reference to their outcomes and offer an alternative means of assessment, which emphasizes the deliberation process rather than the decision's end results. We propose decision making comprises a pre-decisional process and an act of decision determination and consider how this model of decision making serves to develop a new approach to evaluating what constitutes a good decision making process. We proceed to offer an alternative, which parses decisions into the pre-decisional deliberation process, the act of determination and post-decisional outcomes. DISCUSSION: Evaluating the deliberation process, we propose, should comprise of a subjective sufficiency of knowledge, as well as emotional processing and affective forecasting of the alternatives. This should form the basis for a good act of determination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19740089      PMCID: PMC5060530          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00572.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  22 in total

Review 1.  Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Al Mulley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-06

2.  Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?

Authors:  A E Raffle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  Predicting preferences: a neglected aspect of shared decision-making.

Authors:  Nick Sevdalis; Nigel Harvey
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Validation of a decisional conflict scale.

Authors:  A M O'Connor
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale.

Authors:  M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1996 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation.

Authors:  G Elwyn; A Edwards; P Kinnersley
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Toward the 'tipping point': decision aids and informed patient choice.

Authors:  Annette M O'Connor; John E Wennberg; France Legare; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Benjamin W Moulton; Karen R Sepucha; Andrea G Sodano; Jaime S King
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  Validation of a decision regret scale.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Annette M O'Connor; Timothy J Wood; Thomas F Hack; Laura Siminoff; Elisa Gordon; Deb Feldman-Stewart
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Understanding why decision aids work: linking process with outcome.

Authors:  Hilary L Bekker; Jenny Hewison; Jim G Thornton
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2003-07
View more
  65 in total

1.  Patient involvement in mental health care: one size does not fit all.

Authors:  Else Tambuyzer; Guido Pieters; Chantal Van Audenhove
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  The importance and complexity of regret in the measurement of 'good' decisions: a systematic review and a content analysis of existing assessment instruments.

Authors:  Natalie Joseph-Williams; Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making.

Authors:  Karine Toupin-April; Jennifer Barton; Liana Fraenkel; Linda Li; Viviane Grandpierre; Francis Guillemin; Tamara Rader; Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Janet Jull; Jennifer Petkovic; Marieke Scholte-Voshaar; Vivian Welch; Anne Lyddiatt; Cathie Hofstetter; Maarten De Wit; Lyn March; Tanya Meade; Robin Christensen; Cécile Gaujoux-Viala; Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Annelies Boonen; Christoph Pohl; Richard Martin; Peter S Tugwell
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 4.666

4.  Decision-making in childhood cancer: parents' and adolescents' views and perceptions.

Authors:  Eden G Robertson; Claire E Wakefield; Joanne Shaw; Anne-Sophie Darlington; Brittany C McGill; Richard J Cohn; Joanna E Fardell
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Dialysis Regret: Prevalence and Correlates.

Authors:  Fahad Saeed; Susan A Ladwig; Ronald M Epstein; Rebeca D Monk; Paul R Duberstein
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 8.237

6.  Risk Perception and Psychological Distress in Genetic Counselling for Hereditary Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  G Cicero; R De Luca; P Dorangricchia; G Lo Coco; C Guarnaccia; D Fanale; V Calò; A Russo
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Decision influences and aftermath: parents, stillbirth and autopsy.

Authors:  Dell Horey; Vicki Flenady; Liz Conway; Emma McLeod; Teck Yee Khong
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Shared mind: communication, decision making, and autonomy in serious illness.

Authors:  Ronald M Epstein; Richard L Street
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.166

9.  What is a good medical decision? A research agenda guided by perspectives from multiple stakeholders.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Sarah E Lillie; Dana L Alden; Laura Scherer; Megan Oser; Christine Rini; Miho Tanaka; John Baleix; Mikki Brewster; Simon Craddock Lee; Mary K Goldstein; Robert M Jacobson; Ronald E Myers; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Erika A Waters
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2016-08-26

10.  Women's concerns about the emotional impact of awareness of heritable breast cancer risk and its implications for their children.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Darren Mays; Andrea Farkas Patenaude; Judy E Garber; Tiffani A DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Katherine A Schneider; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-08-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.