Patient comprehension of information for shared treatment decision making: State of the art and future directions

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 285-290

  Wills, Celia E ^a   Holmes Rovner, Margaret ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Health treatment decision making; Information presentation; Informed consent

Indexed keywords

COMPREHENSION; CONFERENCE PAPER; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; THINKING; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 0042167523     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00051-X     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. O'Connor A, Entwistle V, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H. Society for Medical Decision Making Short Course (SC-6): recent advances in the development of decision aids to promote shared decision making. Washington, DC: Society for Medical Decision Making; 2000.
2. Braddock C.H., Edwards K.A., Hasenberg N.M., Laidley T.L., Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 282:1999;2313-2320.
3. Coulter A., Entwistle V., Gilbert D. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? Br. Med. J. 318:1999;318-322.
4. Entwistle V., Sheldon T.A., Sowden A.J., Watts I.S. Supporting consumer involvement in decision making: what constitutes quality in consumer health information? Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 8:1996;425-437.
5. Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Entwistle V, Coulter A, O'Connor A, Rovner D. Patient choice modules for summaries of clinical effectiveness: a proposal. Br Med J 322: 664-7.
6. Holmes-Rovner M, Lllewellyn-Thomas H, Elwyn G. Moving to the mainstream. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors. Evidence-based patient choice: inevitable or impossible? Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford; 2001. p. 270-88.
7. Mazur D. Information disclosure and beyond: how do patients understand and use the information they report they want? Med. Decision Making. 20:2000;132-133.
8. Mazur, D. What level of understanding do patients want in shared decision making? In: Shared decision making in the patient physician relationship. Tampa, Florida: American College of Physician Executives; 2001. p. 185-90.
9. Edwards A., Elwyn G. How should 'effectiveness' of risk communication to aid patients' decisions be judged? A review of the literature. Med. Decision Making. 19:1999;428-434.
10. Wills C.E., Moore C.F. Perspective-taking judgments of medication acceptance: inferences from relative importance about the impact and combination of information. Org. Beh. Hum. Dec. Proc. 66:1996;251-267.
11. Ferguson T. From patients to end users. Br. Med. J. 324:2002;555-556.
12. Purcell G.P., Wilson P., Delamothe T. The quality of health information on the internet. Br. Med. J. 324:2002;557-558.
13. Edwards A., Elwyn G., Covey J., Mathews E., Pill R. Presenting risk information - a review of the effects of 'framing' and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J. Health Commun. 6:2001;61-82.
14. Malenka D.J., Baron J.A., Johansen S J.W., Ross J.M. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 8:1993;543-548.
15. Hux J.E., Naylor D.C. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med. Decision Making. 15:1995;152-157.
16. Woloshin S., Schwartz L.M., Black W.C., Welch H.G. Women's perceptions of breast cancer risk: how you ask matters. Med. Decision Making. 19:1999;221-229.
17. Rozin P., Ashmore M., Markwith M. Lay American conceptualizations of nutrition: dose insensitivity, categorical thinking, contagion, and the monotonic mind. Health Psychol. 15:1996;438-447.
18. Rothman A.J., Kiviniemi M.T. Treating people with information: an analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 25:1999;44-51.
19. Lipkus I.M., Samsa G., Rimer B.K. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med. Decision Making. 21:2001;37-44.
20. Hastie R, Dawes RM. Rational choice in an uncertain world. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 2001.
21. Schwartz A. Framing effects. Med. Decision Making. 19:1999;108-109.
22. O'Connor A.M.C., Boyd N.F., Tritchler D.L., Kriukov Y., Sutherland H., Till J.E. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments: the influence of framing, medium, and rater variables. Med. Decision Making. 5:1985;453-463.
23. Marteau T.M. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 28:1989;89-94.
24. Donovan R.J., Jalleh G. Positive versus negative framing of a hypothetical infant immunization: the influence of involvement. Health Educ. Behav. 27:2000;82-95.
25. Rothman A.J., Salovey P., Antone C., Keough K., Martin C.D. The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 29:1993;408-433.
26. Armstrong K., Schwartz J.S., Fitzgerald G., Putt M., Ubel P.A. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med. Decision Making. 22:2002;76-83.
27. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 185:1974;1124-1131.
28. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Research Group. Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford; 1999.
29. Gigerenzer G. Adaptive thinking: rationality in the real world. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford; 2000.
30. Lipkus I.M., Hollands J.G. The visual communication of risk. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 25:1999;149-163.
31. Mazur D.J., Hickham D.H. Patients' and physicians' interpretations of graphic data displays. Med. Decision Making. 13:1993;59-63.
32. Mazur D.J., Merz J.F. How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 41:1993;223-228.
33. Mazur D.J., Hickham D.H. Five-year survival curves: how much data are enough for patient-physician decision making in general surgery? Eur. J. Surg. 162:1996;101-104.
34. Morrow D.G., Hier C.M. Icons improve older and younger adults' comprehension of medication information. J. Gerontol. 53B:1998;240-254.
35. Feldman-Stewart D., Kocovski N., McConnell B.A., Brundage M.D., Mackillop W.J. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med. Decision Making. 20:2000;228-238.
36. Schapira M.M., Nattinger A.B., McHorney C.A. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med. Decision Making. 21:2001;459-467.
37. Fetting J.H., Siminoff L.A., Piantadosi S., Abeloff M.D., Damron D.J., Sarsfield A.M. Effect of patients' expectations of benefit with standard breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy on participation in a randomized clinical trial: a clinical vignette study. J. Clin. Oncol. 8:1990;1476-1482.
38. Mazur D.J., Merz J.F. How age, outcome severity, and scale influence general medicine clinic patients' interpretation of verbal probability terms. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 9:1994;268-271.
39. Mazur D.J., Hickam D.H. Patients' interpretations of probability terms. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 5:1991;402-405.
40. Mazur D.J., Hickham D.H. Patients' preferences for risk disclosure and role in decision making for invasive medical procedures. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 12:1997;114-117.
41. Mazur D.J., Hickham D.H., Mazur M.D. How patients' preferences for risk information influence treatment choice in a case of high risk and high therapeutic uncertainty: asymptomatic localized prostate cancer. Med. Decision Making. 19:1999;394-398.
42. Dowie J. Communication for better decisions: not about 'risk'. Health Risk Soc. 1:1999;41-53.
43. Wills C.E. On the role of framing effects in assessment of health-related utilities. Med. Decision Making. 19:1999;505-506.
44. O'Connor AM, Edwards A. The role of decision aids in promoting evidence-based patient choice. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors. Evidence-based patient choice: inevitable or impossible? Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford; 2001. p. 220-42.
45. Marcus A. New directions for risk communication research: a discussion with additional suggestions. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 25:1999;35-42.
46. Russell C. Living can be hazardous to your health: how the news media cover cancer risks. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 25:1999;167-170.
47. Charles C., Whelan T., Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? Br. Med. J. 319:1999;780-782.
48. Edwards A, Bastian, H. Risk communication - making evidence part of patient choices. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors, Evidence-based patient choice: inevitable or impossible? Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford; 2001. p. 144-60.