Medical Decision Making最新文献

{"title":"Medical Homo Ignorans, Shared Decision Making, and Affective Paternalism: Balancing Emotion and Analysis in Health Care Choices.","authors":"Gustav Tinghög, Emil Persson, Daniel Västfjäll","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241263001","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241263001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141447408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Using Separate Single-Outcome Risk Presentations Instead of Integrated Multioutcome Formats Improves Comprehension in Discrete Choice Experiments.","authors":"Matthew J Wallace, E Hope Weissler, Jui-Chen Yang, Laura Brotzman, Matthew A Corriere, Eric A Secemsky, Jessie Sutphin, F Reed Johnson, Juan Marcos Gonzalez, Michelle E Tarver, Anindita Saha, Allen L Chen, David J Gebben, Misti Malone, Andrew Farb, Olufemi Babalola, Eva M Rorer, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Shelby D Reed","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241258466","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241258466","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite decades of research on risk-communication approaches, questions remain about the optimal methods for conveying risks for different outcomes across multiple time points, which can be necessary in applications such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We sought to compare the effects of 3 design factors: 1) separated versus integrated presentations of the risks for different outcomes, 2) use or omission of icon arrays, and 3) vertical versus horizontal orientation of the time dimension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized study among a demographically diverse sample of 2,242 US adults recruited from an online panel (mean age 59.8 y, <i>s</i> = 10.4 y; 21.9% African American) that compared risk-communication approaches that varied in the 3 factors noted above. The primary outcome was the number of correct responses to 12 multiple-choice questions asking survey respondents to identify specific numbers, contrast options to recognize dominance (larger v. smaller risks), and compute differences. We used linear regression to test the effects of the 3 design factors, controlling for health literacy, graph literacy, and numeracy. We also measured choice consistency in a subsequent DCE choice module.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean comprehension varied significantly across versions (<i>P</i> < 0.001), with higher comprehension in the 3 versions that provided separated risk information for each risk. In the multivariable regression, separated risk presentation was associated with 0.58 more correct responses (<i>P</i> < 0.001; 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.77) compared with integrated risk information. Neither providing icon arrays nor using vertical versus horizontal time formats affected comprehension rates, although participant understanding did correlate with DCE choice consistency.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In presentations of multiple risks over multiple time points, presenting risk information separately for each health outcome appears to increase understanding.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>When conveying information about risks of different outcomes at multiple time points, separate presentations of single-outcome risks resulted in higher comprehension than presentations that combined risk information for different outcomes.We also observed benefits of presenting single-outcome risks separately among respondents with lower numeracy and graph literacy.Study participants who scored higher on risk understanding were more internally consistent in their responses to a discrete choice experiment.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141433191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Identifying Strategies to Improve Shared Decision Making for Pregnant Patients' Decisions about Prenatal Genetic Screens and Diagnostic Tests.","authors":"Christina Collart, Caitlin Craighead, Meng Yao, Edward K Chien, Susannah Rose, Richard M Frankel, Marissa Coleridge, Bo Hu, Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds, Angela C Ranzini, Ruth M Farrell","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241259016","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241259016","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests are vital components of prenatal care. The first prenatal visit is a critical time in the decision-making process when patients decide whether to use these tests in addition to address a series of other essential prenatal care aspects. We conducted this study to examine the role of a shared decision-making (SDM) instrument to support these discussions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of patients allocated to an SDM tool or usual care at their first prenatal visit. Participants completed a baseline survey to measure decision-making needs and preferences. Direct observation was conducted and analyzed using the OPTION scale to measure SDM during prenatal genetic testing discussions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Levels of SDM were similar across groups (<i>P</i> = 0.081). The highest levels of SDM were observed during screening test discussions (NEST 2.4 ± 0.9 v. control 2.6 ± 1.0). Lowest levels were observed in discussions about patients' preference for risk versus diagnostic information (NEST 1.0 ± 1.1 v. control 1.2 ± 1.3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Study findings demonstrate the need for targeted patient-focused and provider-focused efforts to improve SDM to enhance patients' informed decision making about these options. Importantly, patients' baseline knowledge and attitudes need to be considered given that patients with less knowledge may need more carefully crafted communication.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Choices about whether, when, and how to use prenatal genetic tests are highly preference-based decisions, with patients' baseline attitudes about these options as a major driver in health care discussions.The decision-making process is also shaped by patient preferences regarding a shared or informed decision-making process for medical decisions that are highly personal and have significant ramifications for obstetric outcomes.There is a need to develop targeted efforts to improve decision making and enhance patients' ability to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic tests in early pregnancy.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141856994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"\"Sensemaking\" to Aid Shared Decision Making in Clinical Practice: A Personal Response to Information Overload and Decision Abdication.","authors":"Andrew J Vickers, Paul Bennett","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241257941","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241257941","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11347086/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141260735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes.","authors":"Liam Strand, Lars Sandman, Emil Persson, David Andersson, Ann-Charlotte Nedlund, Gustav Tinghög","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241258195","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241258195","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of policies in medical treatment reimbursement decisions, in which only future patients are affected, prompts a moral dilemma: is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment?</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Through a preregistered behavioral experiment involving 1,067 participants, we tested variations in public attitudes concerning withdrawing and withholding treatments at both the bedside and policy levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In line with our first hypothesis, participants were more supportive of rationing decisions presented as withholding treatments compared with withdrawing treatments. Contrary to our second prestated hypothesis, participants were more supportive of decisions to withdraw treatment made at the bedside level compared with similar decisions made at the policy level.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Our findings provide behavioral insights that help explain the common use of policies affecting only future patients in medical reimbursement decisions, despite normative concerns of such policies. In addition, our results may have implications for communication strategies when making decisions regarding treatment reimbursement.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>We explore public' attitudes toward withdrawing and withholding treatments and how the decision level (bedside or policy level) matters.People were more supportive of withholding medical treatment than of withdrawing equivalent treatment.People were more supportive of treatment withdrawal made at the bedside than at the policy level.Our findings help clarify why common-use policies, which impact only future patients in medical reimbursement decision, are implemented despite the normative concerns associted with thesepolicies.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11346081/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141443607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Who Makes the Decision, How, and Why: A Fuzzy-Trace Theory Approach.","authors":"Sarah M Edelson, Valerie F Reyna","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241263818","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241263818","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141762146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessing Decision Fatigue in General Practitioners' Prescribing Decisions Using the Australian BEACH Data Set.","authors":"Mona Maier, Daniel Powell, Christopher Harrison, Julie Gordon, Peter Murchie, Julia L Allan","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241263823","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241263823","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>General practitioners (GPs) make numerous care decisions throughout their workdays. Extended periods of decision making can result in decision fatigue, a gradual shift toward decisions that are less cognitively effortful. This study examines whether observed patterns in GPs' prescribing decisions are consistent with the decision fatigue phenomenon. We hypothesized that the likelihood of prescribing frequently overprescribed medications (antibiotics, benzodiazepines, opioids; less effortful to prescribe) will increase and the likelihood of prescribing frequently underprescribed medications (statins, osteoporosis medications; more effortful to prescribe) will decrease over the workday.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used nationally representative primary care data on GP-patient encounters from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health program from Australia. The association between prescribing decisions and order of patient encounters over a GP's workday was assessed with generalized linear mixed models accounting for clustering and adjusting for patient, provider, and encounter characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 262,456 encounters recorded by 2,909 GPs, the odds of prescribing antibiotics significantly increased by 8.7% with 15 additional patient encounters (odds ratio [OR] = 1.087; confidence interval [CI] = 1.059-1.116). The odds of prescribing decreased significantly with 15 additional patient encounters by 6.3% for benzodiazepines (OR = 0.937; CI = 0.893-0.983), 21.9% for statins (OR = 0.791; CI = 0.753-0.831), and 25.0% for osteoporosis medications (OR = 0.750; CI = 0.690-0.814). No significant effects were observed for opioids. All findings were replicated in confirmatory analyses except the effect of benzodiazepines.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GPs were increasingly likely to prescribe antibiotics and were less likely to prescribe statins and osteoporosis medications as the workday wore on, which was consistent with decision fatigue. There was no convincing evidence of decision fatigue effects in the prescribing of opioids or benzodiazepines. These findings establish decision fatigue as a promising target for optimizing prescribing behavior.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>We found that as general practitioners progress through their workday, they become more likely to prescribe antibiotics that are reportedly overprescribed and less likely to prescribe statins and osteoporosis medications that are reportedly underprescribed.This change in decision making over time is consistent with the decision fatigue phenomenon. Decision fatigue occurs when we make many decisions without taking a rest break. As we make those decisions, we become gradually more likely to make decisions that are less difficult.The findings of this study show that decision fatigue is a possible target for improving guideline-compliant prescribing of pharmacologic medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11346129/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141762106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Discordant Care and Decision Quality: Patients' Reasons for Not Receiving Their Initial Test of Choice in Colorectal Cancer Screening.","authors":"Joshua B Rager, Karen K Schmidt, Peter H Schwartz","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241262278","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241262278","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concordance between a person's values and the test or treatment they ultimately receive is widely considered to be an essential outcome for good decision quality. There is little research, however, on why patients receive \"discordant\" care. A large, randomized trial of decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening provided an opportunity to assess why some patients received a different test than the one they preferred at an earlier time point.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Of 688 patients who participated in the trial, 43 received a different CRC screening test than the one they selected after viewing a decision aid 6 mo prior. These patients answered 2 brief, open-ended questions about the reasons for this discordance. The research team analyzed their answers using qualitative description.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patient responses reflected 6 major categories: barriers or risks of initially favored test, benefits of alternative test, costs or health insurance coverage, discussion with family or friends, provider factors or recommendation, and health issues.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Some of the patients' explanations fit well with the informed concordance approach, which infers poor decision quality from the existence of discordant care, since in these cases it appears that the patient's values and preferences were not adequately respected. Other statements suggest that the patient had an informed rationale for changing their mind about which test to undergo. These cases may reflect high-quality decision making, despite the existence of discordance as measured in the trial. This analysis highlights a major challenge to a popular approach for assessing decision quality, the difficulty of normatively assessing the quality of decision making when apparent discordant care has been provided, and the need to assess patient values and preference over time.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Value-choice concordance is an accepted measure for assessing decision quality in decision aid trials, but greater exploration of apparently discordant care challenges key assumptions of this method; this study provides evidence that discordance as typically measured may not always reflect low-quality patient decision making.Researchers evaluating decision aids and assessing decision quality should consider the use of qualitative methods to supplement measures of decision quality and consider assessing patient preferences at multiple time points.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141762107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Icon Arrays for Medical Risk Communication: Do Icon Type and Color Influence Cardiovascular Risk Perception and Recall?","authors":"Rebecca Blase, Julia Meis-Harris, Birgitta Weltermann, Simone Dohle","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241263040","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241263040","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Icon arrays have been shown to be an effective method for communicating medical risk information. However, in practice, icon arrays used to visualize personal risks often differ in the type and color of the icons. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of icon type and color on the perception and recall of cardiovascular risk, as little is known about how color affects the perception of icon arrays.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 866 participants aged 40 to 90 years representative of the German population in terms of gender and age completed an online experiment. Using a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 experimental groups. They received their hypothetical 10-year cardiovascular risk using an icon array that varied by icon type (smiley v. person) and color (black/white v. red/yellow). We measured risk perception, emotional response, intentions of taking action to reduce the risk (e.g., increasing one's physical activity), risk recall, and graph evaluation/trustworthiness, as well as numeracy and graphical literacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Icon arrays using person icons were evaluated more positively. There was no effect of icons or color on risk perception, emotional response, intentions of taking action to reduce the risk, or trustworthiness of the graph. While more numerate/graphical literate participants were more likely to correctly recall the presented risk estimate, icon type and color did not influence the probability of correct recall.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Differences in the perception of the tested icon arrays were rather small, suggesting that they may be equally suitable for communicating medical risks. Further research on the robustness of these results across other colors, icons, and risk domains could add to guidelines on the design of visual aids.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>The use of different icons and colors did not influence the perception and the probability of recalling the 10-year cardiovascular risk, the emotional response, or the intentions to reduce the presented risk.Icon arrays with person icons were evaluated more positively.There was no evidence to suggest that the effectiveness of the studied icon arrays varied based on individuals' levels of numerical or graphical literacy, nor did it differ between people with or without a history of CVD or on medication for an increased CVD risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141762108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Perceived Penalties for Sharing Patient Beliefs with Health Care Providers.","authors":"Jessecae K Marsh, Onur Asan, Samantha Kleinberg","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241262241","DOIUrl":"10.1177/0272989X241262241","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care interactions may require patients to share with a physician information they believe but is incorrect. While a key piece of physicians' work is educating their patients, people's concerns of being seen as uninformed or incompetent by physicians may lead them to think that sharing incorrect health beliefs comes with a penalty. We tested people's perceptions of patients who share incorrect information and how these perceptions vary by the reasonableness of the belief and its centrality to the patient's disease.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We recruited 399 United States Prolific.co workers (357 retained after exclusions), 200 Prolific.co workers who reported having diabetes (139 after exclusions), and 244 primary care physicians (207 after exclusions). Participants read vignettes describing patients with type 2 diabetes sharing health beliefs that were central or peripheral to the management of diabetes. Beliefs included true and incorrect statements that were reasonable or unreasonable to believe. Participants rated how a doctor would perceive the patient, the patient's ability to manage their disease, and the patient's trust in doctors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants rated patients who shared more unreasonable beliefs more negatively. There was an extra penalty for incorrect statements central to the patient's diabetes management (sample 1). These results replicated for participants with type 2 diabetes (sample 2) and physician participants (sample 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants believed that patients who share incorrect information with their physicians will be penalized for their honesty. Physicians need to be educated on patients' concerns so they can help patients disclose what may be most important for education.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Understanding how people think they will be perceived in a health care setting can help us understand what they may be wary to share with their physicians.People think that patients who share incorrect beliefs will be viewed negatively.Helping patients share incorrect beliefs can improve care.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11346123/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141876477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}