OBJECTIVE: Assistance for patients faced with medical decisions has largely focussed on the clarification of information and personal values. Our aim is to draw on the decision research describing the role of emotion in combination with health behaviour models to provide a framework for conceptualizing patient decisions. METHODS: A review of the psychological and medical decision making literature concerned with the role of emotion/affect in decision making and health behaviours. RESULTS: Emotion plays an influential role in decision making. Both current and anticipated emotions play a motivational role in choice. Amalgamating these findings with that of Leventhal's (1970) SRM provide a framework for thinking about the influence of emotion on a patient medical decision. CONCLUSION: Our framework suggests that a patient must cope with four sets of elements. The first two relate to the need to manage the cognitive and emotional aspects of the health threat. The second set relate to the management of the cognitive and emotional elements of the decision, itself. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The framework provides a way for practitioners and researchers to frame thinking about a patient medical decision in order to assist the patient in clarifying decisional priorities.
OBJECTIVE: Assistance for patients faced with medical decisions has largely focussed on the clarification of information and personal values. Our aim is to draw on the decision research describing the role of emotion in combination with health behaviour models to provide a framework for conceptualizing patient decisions. METHODS: A review of the psychological and medical decision making literature concerned with the role of emotion/affect in decision making and health behaviours. RESULTS: Emotion plays an influential role in decision making. Both current and anticipated emotions play a motivational role in choice. Amalgamating these findings with that of Leventhal's (1970) SRM provide a framework for thinking about the influence of emotion on a patient medical decision. CONCLUSION: Our framework suggests that a patient must cope with four sets of elements. The first two relate to the need to manage the cognitive and emotional aspects of the health threat. The second set relate to the management of the cognitive and emotional elements of the decision, itself. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The framework provides a way for practitioners and researchers to frame thinking about a patient medical decision in order to assist the patient in clarifying decisional priorities.
Authors: Rebecca A Ferrer; Isaac M Lipkus; Jennifer L Cerully; Colleen M McBride; James A Shepperd; William M P Klein Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Angela O Suen; Rachel A Butler; Robert M Arnold; Brad Myers; Holly O Witteman; Christopher E Cox; Jennifer Gonzalez McComb; Praewpannanrai Buddadhumaruk; Anne-Marie Shields; Noah Morse; Amanda Argenas; Douglas B White Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-07
Authors: Jennifer B Seaman; Robert M Arnold; Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk; Anne-Marie Shields; Rachel M Gustafson; Kristyn Felman; Wendy Newdick; Rachel SanPedro; Suzanne Mackenzie; Jennifer Q Morse; Chung-Chou H Chang; Mary Beth Happ; Mi-Kyung Song; Jeremy M Kahn; Charles F Reynolds; Derek C Angus; Seth Landefeld; Douglas B White Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2018-09
Authors: Yael Schenker; Douglas B White; Megan Crowley-Matoka; Daniel Dohan; Greer A Tiver; Robert M Arnold Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Paul R Falzer; Howard L Leventhal; Ellen Peters; Terri R Fried; Robert Kerns; Marion Michalski; Liana Fraenkel Journal: Pain Pract Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Douglas B White; Sarah Martin Cua; Roberta Walk; Laura Pollice; Lisa Weissfeld; Seoyeon Hong; C Seth Landefeld; Robert M Arnold Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Jocelyn S Thompson; Daniel D Matlock; Colleen K McIlvennan; Amy R Jenkins; Larry A Allen Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 12.035