Literature DB >> 21902770

On the suitability of fast and frugal heuristics for designing values clarification methods in patient decision aids: a critical analysis.

Arwen H Pieterse1, Marieke de Vries.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, patient decision aids and values clarification methods (VCMs) are being developed to support patients in making preference-sensitive health-care decisions. Many VCMs encourage extensive deliberation about options, without solid theoretical or empirical evidence showing that deliberation is advantageous. Research suggests that simple, fast and frugal heuristic decision strategies sometimes result in better judgments and decisions. Durand et al. have developed two fast and frugal heuristic-based VCMs.
OBJECTIVE: To critically analyse the suitability of the 'take the best' (TTB) and 'tallying' fast and frugal heuristics in the context of patient decision making. STRATEGY: Analysis of the structural similarities between the environments in which the TTB and tallying heuristics have been proven successful and the context of patient decision making and of the potential of these heuristic decision processes to support patient decision making.
CONCLUSION: The specific nature of patient preference-sensitive decision making does not seem to resemble environments in which the TTB and tallying heuristics have proven successful. Encouraging patients to consider less rather than more relevant information potentially even deteriorates their values clarification process. Values clarification methods promoting the use of more intuitive decision strategies may sometimes be more effective. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend further theoretical thinking about the expected value of such heuristics and of other more intuitive decision strategies in this context, as well as empirical assessments of the mechanisms by which inducing such decision strategies may impact the quality and outcome of values clarification.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision quality; deliberation; intuition; patient preferences; theory-informed design

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21902770      PMCID: PMC5060669          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00720.x

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


  27 in total

1.  Revisiting decision aids: about definitions and classifications.

Authors:  Anne M Stiggelbout; Danielle R Timmermans
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions.

Authors:  Cathy Charles; Amiram Gafni; Tim Whelan; Mary Ann O'Brien
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Beyond information: exploring patients' preferences.

Authors:  Ronald M Epstein; Ellen Peters
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  What alters physicians' decisions to admit to the coronary care unit?

Authors:  L Green; D R Mehr
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 0.493

Review 5.  Cognitive-emotional decision making (CEDM): a framework of patient medical decision making.

Authors:  Tara E Power; Leora C Swartzman; John W Robinson
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-06-22

6.  Assessing the empirical validity of the "take-the-best" heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference.

Authors:  A Bröder
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity.

Authors:  Wendy L Nelson; Paul K J Han; Angela Fagerlin; Michael Stefanek; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: a cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making.

Authors:  Arwen H Pieterse; Marieke de Vries; Marleen Kunneman; Anne M Stiggelbout; Deb Feldman-Stewart
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Inferences under time pressure: how opportunity costs affect strategy selection.

Authors:  Jörg Rieskamp; Ulrich Hoffrage
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2007-07-20

Review 10.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

Authors:  Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08
View more
  4 in total

1.  There are some big changes in Health Expectations.

Authors:  Jonathan Tritter
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.

Authors:  Alison Brenner; Kirsten Howard; Carmen Lewis; Stacey Sheridan; Trisha Crutchfield; Sarah Hawley; Dan Reuland; Christine Kistler; Michael Pignone
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Does a decision aid for prostate cancer affect different aspects of decisional regret, assessed with new regret scales? A randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Julia J van Tol-Geerdink; Jan Willem H Leer; Carl J Wijburg; Inge M van Oort; Henk Vergunst; Emile J van Lin; J Alfred Witjes; Peep F M Stalmeier
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-05-03       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Smoker profiles and their influence on smokers' intention to use a digital decision aid aimed at the uptake of evidence-based smoking cessation tools: An explorative study.

Authors:  Thomas Gültzow; Eline Suzanne Smit; Raesita Hudales; Carmen D Dirksen; Ciska Hoving
Journal:  Digit Health       Date:  2020-12-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.