Literature DB >> 34850928

Opportunities for theory-informed decision science in cancer control.

Arielle S Gillman1, Rebecca A Ferrer1.   

Abstract

Cancer prevention and control involves navigation of complex clinical decisions, often laden with uncertainty and/or intricate interpersonal dynamics, which have implications for both physical health and quality of life. Cancer decision-making research in recent decades has primarily focused on working to improve the quality of decisions by providing patients with detailed information about their choices and through an increased emphasis in medicine on the importance of shared decision making. This emphasis is reflective of a model of decision making that emphasizes knowledge, options, and deliberative synthesis of information as primary to decision making; yet, decades of research in psychology, decision science, and behavioral economics have taught us that our decisions are not influenced only by our objective knowledge of facts, but by our emotions, by the influence of others, and by biased cognitive processes. We present a conceptual framework for a future of research in decision science and cancer that is informed by decision science theories. Our framework incorporates greater recognition of the interpersonal dynamics of shared decision making, including the biases (including cognitive heuristics and race-based bias) that may affect multiple actors in the decision-making process, and emphasizes study of the interaction between deliberative and affective psychological processes as they relate to decision making. This work should be conducted with an eye toward informing efforts to improve decision making across the cancer care continuum, through interventions that are also informed by theory. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Behavioral Medicine 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Affect; Bias; Cancer; Decision science; Shared decision making

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34850928      PMCID: PMC8860386          DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibab141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Behav Med        ISSN: 1613-9860            Impact factor:   3.046


  74 in total

1.  Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care.

Authors:  Michael J Barry; Susan Edgman-Levitan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  State-of-the-art and future directions in multilevel interventions across the cancer control continuum.

Authors:  Kurt C Stange; Erica S Breslau; Allen J Dietrich; Russell E Glasgow
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

Review 3.  The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Paschal Sheeran; Alexander Maki; Erika Montanaro; Aya Avishai-Yitshak; Angela Bryan; William M P Klein; Eleanor Miles; Alexander J Rothman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  Assessment of the sunk-cost effect in clinical decision-making.

Authors:  Jennifer A Braverman; J S Blumenthal-Barby
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2012-04-02       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Gretchen B Chapman; Janet A Schwartz; George R Bergus
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 6.  Communicating with diverse patients: How patient and clinician factors affect disparities.

Authors:  Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Sherine El-Toukhy
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-08-22

7.  "Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives.

Authors:  D A Redelmeier; E Shafir
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-25       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Long-Term Cause-Specific Mortality in Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients.

Authors:  Simone de Vries; Michael Schaapveld; Cécile P M Janus; Laurien A Daniëls; Eefke J Petersen; Richard W M van der Maazen; Josée M Zijlstra; Max Beijert; Marten R Nijziel; Karijn M S Verschueren; Leontien C M Kremer; Anna M van Eggermond; Pieternella J Lugtenburg; Augustinus D G Krol; Judith M Roesink; Wouter J Plattel; Dick Johan van Spronsen; Gustaaf W van Imhoff; Jan Paul de Boer; Berthe M P Aleman; Flora E van Leeuwen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 10.  Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Gustavo Saposnik; Donald Redelmeier; Christian C Ruff; Philippe N Tobler
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 2.796

View more
  1 in total

1.  Behavioral medicine, cancer control, and NCI: reflections on a fruitful past and auspicious future.

Authors:  William M P Klein
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.046

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.