OBJECTIVE: To review the strengths and weaknesses of deliberative and intuitive processes in the context of patient decision support and to discuss implications for decision aid (DA) design. METHODS: Conceptual review of the strengths and weaknesses of intuitive and analytical decision making and applying these findings to the practice of DA design. RESULTS: DAs combine several important goals: providing information, helping to clarify treatment related values, supporting preference construction processes, and facilitating more active engagement in decision making. Many DAs encourage patients to approach a decision analytically, without solid theoretical or empirical grounding for this approach. Existing research in other domains suggests that both intuition and deliberation may support decision making. We discuss implications for patient decision support and challenge researchers to determine when combining these processes leads to better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Intuitive and analytical decision processes may have complementary effects in achieving the desired outcomes of patient decision support. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: DA developers should be aware that tools solely targeted at supporting deliberation may limit DA effectiveness and harm preference construction processes. Patients may be better served by combined strategies that draw on the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both deliberative and intuitive processes.
OBJECTIVE: To review the strengths and weaknesses of deliberative and intuitive processes in the context of patient decision support and to discuss implications for decision aid (DA) design. METHODS: Conceptual review of the strengths and weaknesses of intuitive and analytical decision making and applying these findings to the practice of DA design. RESULTS: DAs combine several important goals: providing information, helping to clarify treatment related values, supporting preference construction processes, and facilitating more active engagement in decision making. Many DAs encourage patients to approach a decision analytically, without solid theoretical or empirical grounding for this approach. Existing research in other domains suggests that both intuition and deliberation may support decision making. We discuss implications for patient decision support and challenge researchers to determine when combining these processes leads to better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Intuitive and analytical decision processes may have complementary effects in achieving the desired outcomes of patient decision support. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: DA developers should be aware that tools solely targeted at supporting deliberation may limit DA effectiveness and harm preference construction processes. Patients may be better served by combined strategies that draw on the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both deliberative and intuitive processes.
Authors: Andrew B L Berry; Catherine Lim; Andrea L Hartzler; Tad Hirsch; Evette Ludman; Edward H Wagner; James D Ralston Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16
Authors: Dharushana Muthulingam; Joshua Bia; Lynn M Madden; Scott O Farnum; Declan T Barry; Frederick L Altice Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2019-01-26
Authors: R Jean Cadigan; Rita Butterfield; Christine Rini; Margaret Waltz; Kristine J Kuczynski; Kristin Muessig; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail E Henderson Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Sarah E Lillie; Dana L Alden; Laura Scherer; Megan Oser; Christine Rini; Miho Tanaka; John Baleix; Mikki Brewster; Simon Craddock Lee; Mary K Goldstein; Robert M Jacobson; Ronald E Myers; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Erika A Waters Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2016-08-26
Authors: Miriam Kuppermann; Anjali J Kaimal; Cinthia Blat; Juan Gonzalez; Mari-Paule Thiet; Yamilee Bermingham; Anna L Altshuler; Allison S Bryant; Peter Bacchetti; William A Grobman Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Elyse Shuk; Margaux Genoff Garzon; Vivian M Rodríguez; Joy Westerman; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2017-12-21
Authors: Paul K J Han; Norbert Hootsmans; Michael Neilson; Bethany Roy; Terence Kungel; Caitlin Gutheil; Michael Diefenbach; Moritz Hansen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 2.692