Joanna L Hart1,2,3, Emily Pflug4, Vanessa Madden3,5, Scott D Halpern1,2,3,5,6. 1. 1 Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine. 2. 2 Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics. 3. 3 Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science Program. 4. 4 Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. 5 Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and. 6. 6 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and.
Abstract
RATIONALE: The goal of shared decision making is to match patient preferences, including evaluation of potential future outcomes, with available management options. Yet, it is unknown how patients with smoking-related thoracic diseases or their surrogates display future-oriented thinking. OBJECTIVES: To document prevalent themes in patients' and potential surrogate decision makers' future-oriented thinking when facing preference-sensitive choices. METHODS: We conducted 44 scenario-based semistructured interviews among a diverse group of outpatients with smoking-associated thoracic diseases and potential surrogates for whom one of three preference-sensitive decisions would be medically relevant. Using content analysis, we documented prevalent themes to understand how these individuals display future-oriented thinking. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients and potential surrogates generally expressed expectations for future outcomes but also acknowledged their limitations in doing so. When thinking about potential outcomes, decision makers relied on past experiences, including those only loosely related; perceived familiarity with treatment options; and spirituality. The content of these expectations included effects on family, emotional predictions, and prognostication. For surrogates, a tension existed between hope-based and fact-based expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and surrogates may struggle to generate expectations, and these future-oriented thoughts may be based on loosely related past experiences or unrealistic optimism. These tendencies may lead to errors, preventing selection of treatments that promote true preferences. Clinicians should explore how decision makers engage in future-oriented thinking and what their expectations are as a component of the shared decision-making process. Future research should evaluate whether targeted guidance in future-oriented thinking may improve outcomes important to patients.
RATIONALE: The goal of shared decision making is to match patient preferences, including evaluation of potential future outcomes, with available management options. Yet, it is unknown how patients with smoking-related thoracic diseases or their surrogates display future-oriented thinking. OBJECTIVES: To document prevalent themes in patients' and potential surrogate decision makers' future-oriented thinking when facing preference-sensitive choices. METHODS: We conducted 44 scenario-based semistructured interviews among a diverse group of outpatients with smoking-associated thoracic diseases and potential surrogates for whom one of three preference-sensitive decisions would be medically relevant. Using content analysis, we documented prevalent themes to understand how these individuals display future-oriented thinking. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patients and potential surrogates generally expressed expectations for future outcomes but also acknowledged their limitations in doing so. When thinking about potential outcomes, decision makers relied on past experiences, including those only loosely related; perceived familiarity with treatment options; and spirituality. The content of these expectations included effects on family, emotional predictions, and prognostication. For surrogates, a tension existed between hope-based and fact-based expectations. CONCLUSIONS:Patients and surrogates may struggle to generate expectations, and these future-oriented thoughts may be based on loosely related past experiences or unrealistic optimism. These tendencies may lead to errors, preventing selection of treatments that promote true preferences. Clinicians should explore how decision makers engage in future-oriented thinking and what their expectations are as a component of the shared decision-making process. Future research should evaluate whether targeted guidance in future-oriented thinking may improve outcomes important to patients.
Authors: Leonard H Epstein; Jerry B Richards; Frances G Saad; Rocco A Paluch; James N Roemmich; Caryn Lerman Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Allison J Applebaum; Emma M Stein; Jennifer Lord-Bessen; Hayley Pessin; Barry Rosenfeld; William Breitbart Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maggie M Sweitzer; Eric C Donny; Lisa C Dierker; Janine D Flory; Stephen B Manuck Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Rachel Kohn; Anil Vachani; Dylan Small; Alisa J Stephens-Shields; Dorothy Sheu; Vanessa L Madden; Brian A Bayes; Marzana Chowdhury; Sadie Friday; Jannie Kim; Michael K Gould; Mohamed H Ismail; Beth Creekmur; Matthew A Facktor; Charlotte Collins; Kristina K Blessing; Christine M Neslund-Dudas; Michael J Simoff; Elizabeth R Alleman; Leonard H Epstein; Michael A Horst; Michael E Scott; Kevin G Volpp; Scott D Halpern; Joanna L Hart Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2022-02