Why values elicitation techniques enable people to make informed decisions about cancer trial participation

Health Expectations

Volumn 14, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2011, Pages 20-32

  Abhyankar, Purva ^a   Bekker, Hilary L ^a   Summers, Barbara A ^b   Velikova, Galina ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^c ST JAMES S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cancer; Decision aids; Informed choice; Informed decision making; Preferences; Trial participation; Values clarification

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PREFERENCE; SOCIAL VALUES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 79951589340     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00615.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Edwards W, Fasolo B. Decision technology. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001; 52: 581-606.
2. Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM et al. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 1999; 3: 1-156.
3. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2005; 2: CD001431.
4. Baron J. Thinking and Deciding, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
5. Frisch D, Clemen R. Beyond expected utility theory: rethinking behavioural decision research. Psychological Bulletin, 1994; 116: 46-54.
6. Janis IL, Mann L. Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan, 1977.
7. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. British Journal of General Practice, 2000; 50: 892-899.
8. Bekker HL, Hewison J, Thornton JG. Applying decision analysis to facilitate informed decision making about prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2004; 24: 265-275.
9. Declaration of Helsinki. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 1964.
10. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. British Medical Journal, 2008; 337: 979-983.
11. O'Connor A, Edwards A. The role of decision aids in promoting evidence-based patient choice. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G (eds) Shared Decision Making In Health Care: Achieving Evidence-Based Patient Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009: 2.
12. Feldman-Stewart D, Brennenstuhl S, Brundage MD, Roques T. An explicit values clarification task: development and validation. Patient Education and Counseling, 2006; 63: 350-356.
13. O'Connor A, Wells G, Tugwell P, Laupacis A, Elmslie T, Drake E. The effects of an 'explicit' values clarification exercise in a woman's decision aid regarding postmenopausal hormone therapy. Health Expectations, 1999; 2: 21-32.
14. Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment, 2001; 5: 1-186.
15. Stiggelbout AM, de Haes JCJM. Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2001; 19: 220-230.
16. Llewellyn-Thomas H. Values clarification. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G (eds) Shared Decision Making In Health Care: Achieving Evidence-Based Patient Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009: 123-134.
17. Elit LM, Levine MN, Gafni A et al. Patients' preferences for therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: development, testing, and application of a bedside decision instrument. Gynecologic Oncology, 1996; 62: 329-335.
18. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Williams I, Levy L, Naylor C. Using a trade-off technique to assess patients' treatment preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Medical Decision Making, 1996; 16: 262-272.
19. Bekker H, Hewison J, Thornton J. Understanding why decision aids work: linking process with outcome. Patient Education and Counseling, 2003; 50: 323-329.
20. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage M, Van Manen L, Svenson O. Patient-focussed decision-making in early-stage prostate cancer: insights from a cognitively based decision aid. Health Expectations, 2004; 7: 126-141.
21. Bekker H. Using decision making theory to inform clinical practice. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G (eds) Evidence-Based Patient Choice: Inevitable or Impossible? 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009: 45-52.
22. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD. Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids. Patient Education and Counseling, 2004; 54: 265-273.
23. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T, O'Brien M. Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions. Health Expectations, 2005; 8: 114-125.
24. Frisch D, Jones S. Assessing the accuracy of decisions. Theory & Psychology, 1993; 3: 115-135.
25. Acker F. New findings on unconscious versus conscious thought in decision making: additional empirical data and meta-analysis. Judgement and Decision Making, 2008; 3: 292-303.
26. Gigerenzer G. Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making. London: Penguin, 2008.
27. Ericsson A. Valid and non-reactive verbalization of thoughts during performance of tasks: towards a solution to the central problems of introspection as a source of scientific data. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2003; 10: 1-18.
28. Ericsson K, Simon HA. Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 1980; 87: 215-251.
29. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
30. Smead R, Wilcox J, Wilkes R. How valid are product descriptions and protocols in choice experiments? Journal of Consumer Research, 1981; 8: 37-42.
31. Svenson O. Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1979; 23: 86-112.
32. Gilhooly K, Green C. Protocol analysis: theoretical background. In: Richardson T (ed) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences. Leicester: British Psychological Society, 1996: 43-54.
33. Kuusela H, Paul P. A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis. The American Journal of Psychology, 2000; 113: 387-404.
34. Ford JK, Schmitt N, Schechtman SL, Hults BM, Doherty ML. Process tracing methods: contributions, problems, and neglected research questions. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 1989; 43: 75-117.
35. Ellis P, Barrett-Lee P, Johnson L et al. Sequential docetaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (TACT): an open-label, phase III, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 2009; 373: 1681-1692.
36. Hughes R. Considering the vignette technique and its application to a study of drug injecting and HIV risk and safer behaviour. Sociology of Health and Illness, 1998; 20: 381-400.
37. Hughes R, Huby M. The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2002; 37: 382-386.
38. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1948; 32: 221-233.
39. Priester JR, Petty RE. The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1996; 71: 431-449.
40. Kaplan KJ. On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: a suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 1972; 77: 361-372.
41. Thompson M, Zanna M, Griffin D. Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In: Petty KE, Krosnick JA (eds) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995: 361-386.
42. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Medical Decision Making, 1995; 15: 25-30.
43. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd edn. London: Sage, 2005.
44. Newby-Clark I, McGregor I, Zanna M. Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: when and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2002; 82: 157-166.
45. Fagerlin A. Getting down to details in the design and use of decision aids. Medical Decision Making, 2009; 29: 409-411.
46. O'Connor A, Rostom A, Fiset V et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. British Medical Journal, 1999; 319: 731-734.
47. Payne JW, Braunstein ML, Carroll JS. Exploring predecisional behavior: an alternative approach to decision research. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 1978; 22: 17-44.
48. Crutcher R. Telling what we know: the use of verbal report methodologies in psychological research. Psychological Science, 1994; 5: 241-244.
49. De Neys W, Glumicic T. Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 2008; 106: 1248-1299.
50. White P. Limitations on verbal reports of internal events: a refutation of Nisbett and Wilson and of Bem. Psychological Review, 1980; 87: 105-112.
51. Kant I. Critique of pure reason. 1781.
52. Payne J, Bettman J. Walking with the scarecrow: the information-processing approach to decision research. In: Koehler D, Harvey N (eds) Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Oxford: Blackwell Publication, 2004: 110-132.
53. Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker P, Nooji M, Evert M, Kievit J. Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Medical Decision Making, 2000; 20: 62-71.
54. Kuhberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2002; 89: 1162-1175.
55. Wong S, Thornton JG, Gbolade B, Bekker HL. A randomised controlled trial of a decision-aid leaflet to facilitate women's choice between pregnancy termination methods. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2006; 113: 688-694.