Literature DB >> 24645693

The vexing problem of defining the meaning, role and measurement of values in treatment decision-making.

Cathy Charles1, Amiram Gafni.   

Abstract

Two international movements, evidence-based medicine (EBM) and shared decision-making (SDM) have grappled for some time with issues related to defining the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in their respective models of treatment decision-making. In this article, we identify and describe unresolved problems in the way that each movement addresses these issues. The starting point for this discussion is that at least two essential ingredients are needed for treatment decision-making: research information about treatment options and their potential benefits and risks; and the values/preferences of participants in the decision-making process. Both the EBM and SDM movements have encountered difficulties in defining the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in treatment decision-making. In the EBM model of practice, there is no clear and consistent definition of patient values/preferences and no guidance is provided on how to integrate these into an EBM model of practice. Methods advocated to measure patient values are also problematic. Within the SDM movement, patient values/preferences tend to be defined and measured in a restrictive and reductionist way as patient preferences for treatment options or attributes of options, while broader underlying value structures are ignored. In both models of practice, the meaning and expected role of physician values in decision-making are unclear. Values clarification exercises embedded in patient decision aids are suggested by SDM advocates to identify and communicate patient values/preferences for different treatment outcomes. Such exercises have the potential to impose a particular decision-making theory and/or process onto patients, which can change the way they think about and process information, potentially impeding them from making decisions that are consistent with their true values. The tasks of clarifying the meaning, role and measurement of values/preferences in treatment decision-making models such as EBM and SDM, and determining whose values ought to count are complex and difficult tasks that will not be resolved quickly. Additional conceptual thinking and research are needed to explore and clarify these issues. To date, the values component of these models remains elusive and underdeveloped.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24645693     DOI: 10.2217/cer.13.91

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Eff Res        ISSN: 2042-6305            Impact factor:   1.744


  11 in total

1.  Patient Preference for Biologic Treatments of Psoriasis in the Chinese Setting.

Authors:  Yitian Lang; Bin Wu; Zhilin Sun; Erjia Ye; Guanshen Dou; Xin Guan
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 2.314

2.  Patient decision aid for medication treatment for opioid use disorder (PtDA-MOUD): Rationale, methodology, and preliminary results.

Authors:  Larissa J Mooney; Jonathan Valdez; Sarah J Cousins; Caroline Yoo; Yuhui Zhu; Yih-Ing Hser
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2019-10-24

3.  Increasing User Involvement in Health Care and Health Research Simultaneously: A Proto-Protocol for "Person-as-Researcher" and Online Decision Support Tools.

Authors:  Mette Kjer Kaltoft; Jesper Bo Nielsen; Glenn Salkeld; Jack Dowie
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2014-11-25

4.  Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with depression: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez; Amado Rivero-Santana; Juan Antonio Sanchez-Afonso; Jeanette Perez-Ramos; Carmen Luisa Castellano-Fuentes; Karen Sepucha; Pedro Serrano-Aguilar
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Risk knowledge of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis - Results of an international survey.

Authors:  Andrea Giordano; Katrin Liethmann; Sascha Köpke; Jana Poettgen; Anne Christin Rahn; Jelena Drulovic; Yesim Beckmann; Jaume Sastre-Garriga; Ian Galea; Marco Heerings; Peter Joseph Jongen; Eik Vettorazzi; Alessandra Solari; Christoph Heesen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Patient preferences on rheumatoid arthritis second-line treatment: a discrete choice experiment of Swedish patients.

Authors:  Karin Schölin Bywall; Ulrik Kihlbom; Mats Hansson; Marie Falahee; Karim Raza; Eva Baecklund; Jorien Veldwijk
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2020-12-19       Impact factor: 5.156

7.  Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Holly O Witteman; Ruth Ndjaboue; Gratianne Vaisson; Selma Chipenda Dansokho; Bob Arnold; John F P Bridges; Sandrine Comeau; Angela Fagerlin; Teresa Gavaruzzi; Melina Marcoux; Arwen Pieterse; Michael Pignone; Thierry Provencher; Charles Racine; Dean Regier; Charlotte Rochefort-Brihay; Praveen Thokala; Marieke Weernink; Douglas B White; Celia E Wills; Jesse Jansen
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Informed shared decision-making supported by decision coaches for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Birte Berger-Höger; Katrin Liethmann; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Burkhard Haastert; Anke Steckelberg
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Birte Berger-Höger; Katrin Liethmann; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Anke Steckelberg
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Psychometric properties of the SCREESCO questionnaire used in a colorectal cancer screening programme-A Rasch analysis.

Authors:  Anna Jervaeus; Kaisa Fritzell; Rolf Hultcrantz; Yvonne Wengström; Anders Kottorp
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2019-11-22       Impact factor: 2.431

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.