On the suitability of fast and frugal heuristics for designing values clarification methods in patient decision aids: A critical analysis

Health Expectations

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2013, Pages

  Pieterse, Arwen H ^a,b   de Vries, Marieke ^a,b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Decision quality; Deliberation; Intuition; Patient preferences; Theory informed design

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HUMAN; PATIENT; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; TIME; ARTICLE; DECISION QUALITY; DELIBERATION; INTUITION; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT PREFERENCES; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; THEORY-INFORMED DESIGN;

DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENTS; TIME FACTORS;

DECISION QUALITY; DELIBERATION; INTUITION; PATIENT PREFERENCES; THEORY-INFORMED DESIGN;

EID: 84881636082     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00720.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Epstein RM, Peters E. Beyond information: exploring patients' preferences. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2009; 302: 195-197.
2. Pieterse AH, Stiggelbout AM, Baas-Thijssen MC, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA. Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients' and oncologists' preferences. British Journal of Cancer, 2007; 97: 717-724.
3. Kerstholt JH, van der Zwaard F, Bart H, Cremers A. Construction of health preferences: a comparison of direct value assessment and personal narratives. Medical Decision Making, 2009; 29: 513-520.
4. Peters E, Lipkus I, Diefenbach MA. The functions of affect in health communications and the construction of health preferences. Journal of Communication, 2006; 56: S140-S162.
5. Power TE, Swartzman LC, Robinson JW. Cognitive-emotional decision making (CEDM): a framework of patient medical decision making. Patient Education and Counseling, 2010; 83: 163-169.
6. Fischhoff B. Value elicitation: is there anything in there?American Psychologist, 1991; 46: 835-847.
7. Simon D, Krawczyk DC, Bleicher A, Holyoak KJ. The transience of constructed preferences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2008; 21: 1-14.
8. Slovic P. The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 1995; 50: 364-371.
9. O'Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2009; 3: CD001431.
10. O'Connor AM, Bennett C, Stacey D et al. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysisMedical Decision Making, 2007; 27: 554-574.
11. Durand MA, Wegwarth O, Boivin J, Elwyn G. Information and decision support needs of parents considering amniocentesis: interviews with pregnant women and health professionals. Health Expectations, 2011. DOI:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00651.x.
12. Nelson WL, Han PK, Fagerlin A, Stefanek M, Ubel PA. Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity. Medical Decision Making, 2007; 27: 609-618.
13. Bekker HL. The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions?Patient Education and Counseling, 2010; 78: 357-364.
14. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T, O'Brien MA. Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions. Health Expectations, 2005; 8: 114-125.
15. Scherer LD, Fagerlin A, Witteman H, De Vries M. Intuition and deliberation in patient decision aids: from evidence in psychological science to empirical questions in medical decision making. Resubmitted, 2011.
16. Elwyn G, Stiel M, Durand MA, Boivin J. The design of patient decision support interventions: addressing the theory-practice gap. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2010; 17: 565-574.
17. Stiggelbout AM, Timmermans DR. Revisiting decision aids: about definitions and classifications. Medical Decision Making, 2010; 30: 696-698.
18. Pieterse AH, De Vries M, Stiggelbout AM, Feldman-Stewart D. Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient treatment decision making. Submitted.
19. Llewellyn-Thomas H. Values clarification. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G (eds) Shared Decision-Making in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009: 123-133.
20. Elwyn G, Miron-Shatz T. Deliberation before determination: the definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 139-147.
21. O'Connor A. Using patient decision aids to promote evidence-based decision making. ACP Journal Club, 2001; 135: A11-A12.
22. Bargh JA. The automaticity of everyday life. In: Wyer RS (ed.) The automaticity of everyday life. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997: 1-62.
23. Damasio AR. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1994.
24. Dijksterhuis A. Think different: the merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004; 87: 586-598.
25. Wilson TD. Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002.
26. Dijksterhuis A, Bos MW, Nordgren LF, Van Baaren RB. On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 2006; 311: 1005-1007.
27. Wilson TD, Schooler JW. Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991; 60: 181-192.
28. Gigerenzer G, Brighton H. Homo Heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2009; 1: 107-143.
29. Gigerenzer G. Fast and frugal heuristics: the tools of bounded rationality. In: Koehler D, Harvey N (eds) Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2004: 62-88.
30. Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 1996; 103: 650-669.
31. Czerlinski J, Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG. How good are simple heuristics?Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 1999: 97-118.
32. Wegwarth O, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Smart strategies for doctors and doctors-in-training: heuristics in medicine. Medical Education, 2009; 43: 721-728.
33. Fischer JE, Steiner F, Zucol F et al. Use of simple heuristics to target macrolide prescription in children with community-acquired pneumonia. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 2002; 156: 1005-1008.
34. Green L, Mehr DR. What alters physicians' decisions to admit to the coronary care unit?Journal of Family Practice, 1997; 45: 219-226.
35. Shanteau J. How much information does an expert use - is it relevant. Acta Psychologica, 1992; 81: 75-86.
36. Bröder A. Assessing the empirical validity of the "take-the-best" heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2000; 26: 1332-1346.
37. Bröder A. Decision making with the "adaptive toolbox": influence of environmental structure, intelligence, and working memory load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2003; 29: 611-625.
38. Newell BR, Weston NJ, Shanks DR. Empirical tests of a fast-and-frugal heuristic: not everyone "takes-the-best". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2003; 91: 82-96.
39. Rieskamp J, Hoffrage U. Inferences under time pressure: how opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta Psychologica, 2008; 127: 258-276.
40. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, the ABC Research Group. Simple Heursitics That Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
41. Ayal S, Hochman G. Ignorance or integration: the cognitive processes underlying choice behavior. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2009; 22: 455-474.
42. Rieskamp J, Otto PE. SSL: a theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 2006; 135: 207-236.
43. Gensch DH, Javalgi RG. The influence of involvement on disaggregate attribute choice models. Journal of Consumer Research, 1987; 14: 71-82.
44. Ford JK, Schmitt N, Schechtman SL, Hults BM, Doherty ML. Process tracing methods - contributions, problems, and neglected research questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1989; 43: 75-117.
45. Biggs SF, Bedard JC, Gaber BG, Linsmeier TJ. The effects of task size and similarity on the decision behavior of bank loan officers. Management Science, 1985; 31: 970-987.
46. Sundström GA. Information search and decision making: the effects of information displays. In: Montgomery AA, Svenson O (eds) Process and Structure in Human Decision Making. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1989: 209-223.
47. Glockner A, Betsch T. Do people make decisions under risk based on ignorance? An empirical test of the priority heuristic against cumulative prospect theoryOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2008; 107: 75-95.
48. Natter HM, Berry DC. Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2005; 19: 123-135.
49. Dieckmann A, Dippold K, Dietrich H. Compensatory versus noncompensatory models for predicting consumer preferences. Judgment and Decision Making, 2009; 4: 200-213.
50. Nowlis SM, Simonson I. Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research, 1997; 34: 205-218.
51. Dhar R. The effect of decision strategy on deciding to defer choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1996; 9: 265-281.
52. De Vries M, Holland RW, Witteman CLM. In the winning mood: affect in the Iowa gambling task. Judgment and Decision Making, 2008; 3: 42-50.