Literature DB >> 23219164

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

Arwen H Pieterse1, Marieke de Vries, Marleen Kunneman, Anne M Stiggelbout, Deb Feldman-Stewart.   

Abstract

Healthcare decisions, particularly those involving weighing benefits and harms that may significantly affect quality and/or length of life, should reflect patients' preferences. To support patients in making choices, patient decision aids and values clarification methods (VCM) in particular have been developed. VCM intend to help patients to determine the aspects of the choices that are important to their selection of a preferred option. Several types of VCM exist. However, they are often designed without clear reference to theory, which makes it difficult for their development to be systematic and internally coherent. Our goal was to provide theory-informed recommendations for the design of VCM. Process theories of decision making specify components of decision processes, thus, identify particular processes that VCM could aim to facilitate. We conducted a review of the MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases and of references to theories included in retrieved papers, to identify process theories of decision making. We selected a theory if (a) it fulfilled criteria for a process theory; (b) provided a coherent description of the whole process of decision making; and (c) empirical evidence supports at least some of its postulates. Four theories met our criteria: Image Theory, Differentiation and Consolidation theory, Parallel Constraint Satisfaction theory, and Fuzzy-trace Theory. Based on these, we propose that VCM should: help optimize mental representations; encourage considering all potentially appropriate options; delay selection of an initially favoured option; facilitate the retrieval of relevant values from memory; facilitate the comparison of options and their attributes; and offer time to decide. In conclusion, our theory-based design recommendations are explicit and transparent, providing an opportunity to test each in a systematic manner.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23219164     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  22 in total

1.  A Psychological Perspective on Factors Predicting Prophylactic Salpingo-Oophorectomy in a Sample of Italian Women from the General Population. Results from a Hypothetical Study in the Context of BRCA Mutations.

Authors:  Teresa Gavaruzzi; Alessandra Tasso; Marzena Franiuk; Liliana Varesco; Lorella Lotto
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Development and psychometric evaluation of the Decisional Engagement Scale (DES-10): A patient-reported psychosocial survey for quality cancer care.

Authors:  Michael Hoerger; Benjamin P Chapman; Supriya G Mohile; Paul R Duberstein
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2016-09

3.  Patient Preferences for Managing Insomnia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Janet M Y Cheung; Delwyn J Bartlett; Carol L Armour; Bandana Saini; Tracey-Lea Laba
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.883

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

Authors:  Arwen H Pieterse; Marieke de Vries
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-09-08       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Keeping the patient in the center: Common challenges in the practice of shared decision making.

Authors:  Kimberly A Fisher; Andy S L Tan; Daniel D Matlock; Barry Saver; Kathleen M Mazor; Arwen H Pieterse
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-08-06

6.  Reasons Why Young Women Accept or Decline Fertility Preservation After Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Patricia E Hershberger; Heather Sipsma; Lorna Finnegan; Jennifer Hirshfeld-Cytron
Journal:  J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2015-11-25

7.  Evaluation of a Novel Preference Assessment Tool for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Nananda F Col; Andrew J Solomon; Vicky Springmann; Carolina Ionete; Enrique Alvarez; Brenda Tierman; Christen Kutz; Idanis Berrios Morales; Carolyn Griffin; Long H Ngo; David E Jones; Glenn Phillips; Ashli Hopson; Lori Pbert
Journal:  Int J MS Care       Date:  2018 Nov-Dec

8.  A cluster randomised controlled trial of a web based decision aid to support parents' decisions about their child's Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccination.

Authors:  S Shourie; C Jackson; F M Cheater; H L Bekker; R Edlin; S Tubeuf; W Harrison; E McAleese; M Schweiger; B Bleasby; L Hammond
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2013-10-19       Impact factor: 3.641

Review 9.  Clarifying values: an updated review.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Michael Pignone; Purva Abhyankar; Nananda Col; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Teresa Gavaruzzi; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Carrie A Levin; Arwen H Pieterse; Valerie Reyna; Anne Stiggelbout; Laura D Scherer; Celia Wills; Holly O Witteman
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Development and preliminary user testing of the DCIDA (Dynamic computer interactive decision application) for 'nudging' patients towards high quality decisions.

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Linda C Li; Larry Lynd; Stirling Bryan
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.