Daniel D Matlock1, Jacqueline Jones2, Carolyn T Nowels3, Amy Jenkins4, Larry A Allen4, Jean S Kutner3. 1. Colorado Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Consortium, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: daniel.matlock@ucdenver.edu. 2. University of Colorado School of Nursing, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 4. Colorado Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Consortium, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that patients with primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) often misunderstand the ICD. Advances in behavioral economics demonstrate that some misunderstandings may be due to cognitive biases. We aimed to explore the influence of cognitive bias on ICD decision making. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a qualitative framework analysis including 9 cognitive biases: affect heuristic, affective forecasting, anchoring, availability, default effects, halo effects, optimism bias, framing effects, and state dependence. We interviewed 48 patients from 4 settings in Denver. The majority were male (n = 32). Overall median age was 61 years. We found frequent evidence for framing, default, and halo effects; some evidence of optimism bias, affect heuristic, state dependence, anchoring and availability bias; and little or no evidence of affective forecasting. Framing effects were apparent in overestimation of benefits and downplaying or omitting potential harms. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of cognitive bias in decision making for ICD implantation. The majority of these biases appeared to encourage ICD treatment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that patients with primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) often misunderstand the ICD. Advances in behavioral economics demonstrate that some misunderstandings may be due to cognitive biases. We aimed to explore the influence of cognitive bias on ICD decision making. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a qualitative framework analysis including 9 cognitive biases: affect heuristic, affective forecasting, anchoring, availability, default effects, halo effects, optimism bias, framing effects, and state dependence. We interviewed 48 patients from 4 settings in Denver. The majority were male (n = 32). Overall median age was 61 years. We found frequent evidence for framing, default, and halo effects; some evidence of optimism bias, affect heuristic, state dependence, anchoring and availability bias; and little or no evidence of affective forecasting. Framing effects were apparent in overestimation of benefits and downplaying or omitting potential harms. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of cognitive bias in decision making for ICD implantation. The majority of these biases appeared to encourage ICD treatment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Catheter ablation and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; health services; heart failure; quality and outcomes; sudden cardiac death
Authors: Andrew E Epstein; John P DiMarco; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Roger A Freedman; Leonard S Gettes; A Marc Gillinov; Gabriel Gregoratos; Stephen C Hammill; David L Hayes; Mark A Hlatky; L Kristin Newby; Richard L Page; Mark H Schoenfeld; Michael J Silka; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Michael O Sweeney; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; David P Faxon; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Bruce W Lytle; Rick A Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ilan Goldenberg; Arthur J Moss; W Jackson Hall; Scott McNitt; Wojciech Zareba; Mark L Andrews; David S Cannom Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-06-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Karen R Sepucha; Mick P Couper; Carrie A Levin; Eleanor Singer; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Dan D Matlock; Carolyn T Nowels; Frederick A Masoudi; William H Sauer; David B Bekelman; Deborah S Main; Jean S Kutner Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Sandra B Dunbar; Cynthia M Dougherty; Samuel F Sears; Diane L Carroll; Nathan E Goldstein; Daniel B Mark; George McDaniel; Susan J Pressler; Eleanor Schron; Paul Wang; Vicki L Zeigler Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Richard W Gurich; Amy M Cizik; Stephanie E Punt; Michael Namekata; Christopher N Johnson; Rebecca G Symons; Elena G Brewer; Matthew J Thompson Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Daniel B Kramer; Daniel Habtemariam; Yaw Adjei-Poku; Michelle Samuel; Diane Engorn; Matthew R Reynolds; Susan L Mitchell Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Sandra L Carroll; Gayathri Embuldeniya; Jasprit Pannag; Krystina B Lewis; Jeff S Healey; Michael McGillion; Lehana Thabane; Dawn Stacey Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Daniel D Matlock; Mayuko Ito Fukunaga; Andy Tan; Chris Knoepke; Demetria M McNeal; Kathleen M Mazor; Russell E Glasgow Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2020-10-15