Patrick W Corrigan1, Nicolas Rüsch2, Dror Ben-Zeev3, Tamara Sher4. 1. Department of Psychology. 2. Psychiatric University Hospital Zurich. 3. Dartmouth Medical School. 4. Department of Psychology, Northwestern University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many people with psychiatric disabilities do not benefit from evidence-based practices because they often do not seek out or fully adhere to them. One way psychologists have made sense of this rehabilitation and health decision process and subsequent behaviors (of which adherence might be viewed as one) is by proposing a "rational patient"; namely, that decisions are made deliberatively by weighing perceived costs and benefits of intervention options. Social psychological research, however, suggests limitations to a rational patient theory that impact models of health decision making. DESIGN: The research literature was reviewed for studies of rational patient models and alternative theories with empirical support. Special focus was on models specifically related to decisions about rehabilitation strategies for psychiatric disability. RESULTS: Notions of the rational patient evolved out of several psychological models including the health belief model, protection motivation theory, and theory of planned behavior. A variety of practice strategies evolved to promote rational decision making. However, research also suggests limitations to rational deliberations of health. (1) Rather than carefully and consciously considered, many health decisions are implicit, potentially occurring outside awareness. (2) Decisions are not always planful; often it is the immediate exigencies of a context rather than an earlier balance of costs and benefits that has the greatest effects. (3) Cool cognitions often do not dictate the process; emotional factors have an important role in health decisions. Each of these limitations suggests additional practice strategies that facilitate a person's health decisions. CONCLUSION: Old models of rational decision making need to be supplanted by multiprocess models that explain supradeliberative factors in health decisions and behaviors. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Many people with psychiatric disabilities do not benefit from evidence-based practices because they often do not seek out or fully adhere to them. One way psychologists have made sense of this rehabilitation and health decision process and subsequent behaviors (of which adherence might be viewed as one) is by proposing a "rational patient"; namely, that decisions are made deliberatively by weighing perceived costs and benefits of intervention options. Social psychological research, however, suggests limitations to a rational patient theory that impact models of health decision making. DESIGN: The research literature was reviewed for studies of rational patient models and alternative theories with empirical support. Special focus was on models specifically related to decisions about rehabilitation strategies for psychiatric disability. RESULTS: Notions of the rational patient evolved out of several psychological models including the health belief model, protection motivation theory, and theory of planned behavior. A variety of practice strategies evolved to promote rational decision making. However, research also suggests limitations to rational deliberations of health. (1) Rather than carefully and consciously considered, many health decisions are implicit, potentially occurring outside awareness. (2) Decisions are not always planful; often it is the immediate exigencies of a context rather than an earlier balance of costs and benefits that has the greatest effects. (3) Cool cognitions often do not dictate the process; emotional factors have an important role in health decisions. Each of these limitations suggests additional practice strategies that facilitate a person's health decisions. CONCLUSION: Old models of rational decision making need to be supplanted by multiprocess models that explain supradeliberative factors in health decisions and behaviors. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Nathan S Consedine; Carol Magai; Yulia S Krivoshekova; Lynn Ryzewicz; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.254