OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework of decision making and coping in healthcare that describes the twin processes of appraisal and coping faced by patients making preference-sensitive healthcare decisions. METHODS: We briefly review the literature for decision making theories and coping theories applicable to preference-sensitive decisions in healthcare settings. We describe first decision making, then coping and finally attempt to integrate these processes by building on current theory. RESULTS: Deliberation in healthcare may be described as a six step process, comprised of the presentation of a health threat, choice, options, preference construction, the decision itself and consolidation post-decision. Coping can be depicted in three stages, beginning with a threat, followed by primary and secondary appraisal and ultimately resulting in a coping effort. CONCLUSIONS: Drawing together concepts from prominent decision making theories and coping theories, we propose a multidimensional, interactive framework which integrates both processes and describes coping in deliberation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The proposed framework offers an insight into the complexity of decision making in preference-sensitive healthcare contexts from a patient perspective and may act as theoretical basis for decision support.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework of decision making and coping in healthcare that describes the twin processes of appraisal and coping faced by patients making preference-sensitive healthcare decisions. METHODS: We briefly review the literature for decision making theories and coping theories applicable to preference-sensitive decisions in healthcare settings. We describe first decision making, then coping and finally attempt to integrate these processes by building on current theory. RESULTS: Deliberation in healthcare may be described as a six step process, comprised of the presentation of a health threat, choice, options, preference construction, the decision itself and consolidation post-decision. Coping can be depicted in three stages, beginning with a threat, followed by primary and secondary appraisal and ultimately resulting in a coping effort. CONCLUSIONS: Drawing together concepts from prominent decision making theories and coping theories, we propose a multidimensional, interactive framework which integrates both processes and describes coping in deliberation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The proposed framework offers an insight into the complexity of decision making in preference-sensitive healthcare contexts from a patient perspective and may act as theoretical basis for decision support.
Authors: Alexis Colley; Jodi Halpern; Steven Paul; Guy Micco; Maureen Lahiff; Fay Wright; Jon D Levine; Judy Mastick; Marilyn J Hammer; Christine Miaskowski; Laura B Dunn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Marilia Sá Carvalho; Claudia Medina Coeli; Dóra Chor; Rejane Sobrino Pinheiro; Maria de Jesus Mendes da Fonseca; Luiz Carlos de Sá Carvalho Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: O M Neve; G Soulier; M Hendriksma; A G L van der Mey; A van Linge; P P G van Benthem; E F Hensen; A M Stiggelbout Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Kate J Lifford; Jana Witt; Maria Burton; Karen Collins; Lisa Caldon; Adrian Edwards; Malcolm Reed; Lynda Wyld; Kate Brain Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Dawn Stacey; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Jeff Belkora; B Joyce Davison; Marie-Anne Durand; Karen B Eden; Aubri S Hoffman; Mirjam Koerner; France Légaré; Marie-Chantal Loiselle; Richard L Street Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Alexandra K Superdock; Raymond C Barfield; Debra H Brandon; Sharron L Docherty Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 3.234