Literature DB >> 21495515

Questioning the quantitative imperative: decision aids, prevention, and the ethics of disclosure.

Peter H Schwartz1.   

Abstract

Patients should not always receive hard data about the risks and benefits of a medical intervention. That information should always be available to patients who expressly ask for it, but it should be part of standard disclosure only sometimes, and only for some patients. And even then, we need to think about how to offer it.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21495515     DOI: 10.1353/hcr.2011.0029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep        ISSN: 0093-0334            Impact factor:   2.683


  12 in total

1.  More Is Not Always Better: Intuitions About Effective Public Policy Can Lead to Unintended Consequences.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; William Klein; Annette Kaufman; Louise Meilleur; Anna Dixon
Journal:  Soc Issues Policy Rev       Date:  2013-01-01

2.  Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Christine Lary; Adam Black; Caitlin Gutheil; Hayley Mandeville; Jason Yahwak; Mayuko Fukunaga
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-10-20       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Presenting Numeric Information with Percentages and Descriptive Risk Labels: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Aleksandr Sinayev; Ellen Peters; Martin Tusler; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Supporting Health and Medical Decision Making: Findings and Insights from Fuzzy-Trace Theory.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Sarah Edelson; Bridget Hayes; David Garavito
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 2.749

5.  Evidence-based recommendations for communicating the impacts of climate change on health.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; Patrick Boyd; Linda D Cameron; Noshir Contractor; Michael A Diefenbach; Sara Fleszar-Pavlovic; Ezra Markowitz; Renee N Salas; Keri K Stephens
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 3.626

6.  Engaging Patients in Decisions About Cancer Screening: Exploring the Decision Journey Through the Use of a Patient Portal.

Authors:  Steven H Woolf; Alex H Krist; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Resa M Jones; Rebecca R Lehman; Camille J Hochheimer; Roy T Sabo; Dominick L Frosch; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Daniel R Longo
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; P Sol Hart; Martin Tusler; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation.

Authors:  Peter H Schwartz; Kieran C O'Doherty; Colene Bentley; Karen K Schmidt; Michael M Burgess
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: the results of two experiments.

Authors:  Teresa A Myers; Edward Maibach; Ellen Peters; Anthony Leiserowitz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Maren Reder; Petra Kolip
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 2.809

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.