Literature DB >> 6727587

Discount functions and the measurement of patients' values. Women's decisions during childbirth.

J J Christensen-Szalanski.   

Abstract

This paper discusses the measurement of patients' values for future outcomes and examines some problems clinicians confront when making management decisions that attempt to comply with those values. It presents a model that implies that a patient's preference varies with the passage of time, and that during certain periods of time a patient's values may not be representative of his or her long-term preference. An examination of the attitudes of 18 pregnant women toward avoiding pain and avoiding anesthesia bore out the predictions of this model. The women preferred to avoid using anesthesia during childbirth when asked one month before labor and during early labor; however, during active labor their preferences suddenly shifted toward avoiding pain (p less than 0.05). Their preference shifted again toward avoiding the use of anesthesia (p less than 0.05) when evaluated at one month postpartum. The women's preferences one month before labor were the best predictors of their postpartum preferences. The women's preferences during active labor and transition phase of labor were unrelated to their postpartum preferences. These results suggest that, depending upon when a patient's values are measured, (1) they may not be representative of his or her long-term preference, and (2) their use in decision analyses may not maximize the patient's long-term satisfaction so much as they maximize the probability that the decision will be based on the patient's impulsive response. These results also imply that (3) patients may make inherently less reliable value assessments of abstract outcomes they have never experienced, and (4) the distinction between current and long-term values can create a problem when determining whether people behave rationally.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6727587     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8400400108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  20 in total

Review 1.  Cost utility analysis of radiographic screening for an orbital foreign body before MR imaging.

Authors:  D J Seidenwurm; C H McDonnell; N Raghavan; J Breslau
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  The living legacy of the Harvard Pigeon Lab: quantitative analysis in the wide world.

Authors:  A W Logue
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Time preference for health gains versus health losses.

Authors:  L D MacKeigan; L N Larson; J R Draugalis; J L Bootman; L R Burns
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Decision biases in intertemporal choice and choice under uncertainty: testing a common account.

Authors:  Gretchen B Chapman; Bethany J Weber
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-04

5.  A probabilistic, dynamic, and attribute-wise model of intertemporal choice.

Authors:  Junyi Dai; Jerome R Busemeyer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2014-03-17

6.  Trial of labor versus elective repeat cesarean section for the women with a previous cesarean section: a decision analysis.

Authors:  J H Chuang; R A Jenders
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  1999

7.  Would you rather be a 'birth' or a 'genetic' mother? If so, how much?

Authors:  J G Thornton; H M McNamara; I A Montague
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  A random utility model of delay discounting and its application to people with externalizing psychopathology.

Authors:  Junyi Dai; Rachel L Gunn; Kyle R Gerst; Jerome R Busemeyer; Peter R Finn
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2015-11-23

9.  Decisions at the end of life: have we come of age?

Authors:  Linda Emanuel; Karen Glasser Scandrett
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 8.775

10.  Combine or separate future pain? The impact of current pain on decisions about future dental treatments.

Authors:  Eduardo B Andrade; Marco Aurélio Bianchini; Newton Lucchiari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.