Literature DB >> 23265430

Combining deliberation and intuition in patient decision support.

Marieke de Vries1, Angela Fagerlin, Holly O Witteman, Laura D Scherer.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23265430     DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.11.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  25 in total

1.  Eliciting Values of Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions: Evaluation of a Patient-centered Framework.

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

Review 2.  Decision making and cancer.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2015 Feb-Mar

3.  Using nominal group technique to identify barriers, facilitators, and preferences among patients seeking treatment for opioid use disorder: A needs assessment for decision making support.

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

4.  Online Education and e-Consent for GeneScreen, a Preventive Genomic Screening Study.

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

5.  Development and field testing of a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision making in contraceptive counseling.

Authors:  Christine Dehlendorf; Judith Fitzpatrick; Jody Steinauer; Lawrence Swiader; Kevin Grumbach; Cara Hall; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2017-02-10

6.  What is a good medical decision? A research agenda guided by perspectives from multiple stakeholders.

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

7.  Effect of a Patient-Centered Decision Support Tool on Rates of Trial of Labor After Previous Cesarean Delivery: The PROCEED Randomized Clinical Trial.

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

8.  Decision aids for shared decision-making in Barrett's esophagus surveillance.

Authors:  Aanand D Naik; Hashem B El-Serag
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 11.382

9.  Decision-Making Preferences About Secondary Germline Findings That Arise From Tumor Genomic Profiling Among Patients With Advanced Cancers.

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

10.  The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.