Laura D. Scherer

Clarifying Values: An updated review

BackgroundConsensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids.MethodsBuilding on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary.ResultsValues clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single “best” practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect.ConclusionsValues clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness.

Toward a greater understanding of the emotional dynamics of the mortality salience manipulation: revisiting the "affect-free" claim of terror management research.

The experimental manipulation of mortality salience (MS) represents one of the most widely used methodological procedures in social psychology, having been employed by terror management researchers in hundreds of studies over the last 20 years. One of the more provocative conclusions regarding this task is that it does not produce any reliable changes in self-reported affect, a view that we refer to as the affect-free claim. After reviewing 336 published studies that used the standard version of the MS task, we suggest that the evidence on which this claim is based may be less definitive than is commonly supposed. Moreover, we propose that the MS manipulation can, in fact, produce significant and meaningful changes in affect once one employs the appropriate measures and experimental design. In support of this position, we report 4 experiments, each of which demonstrates reliable activation of negative affect, especially with respect to fear-/terror-related sentiments. We discuss the implications of our findings for terror management theory as well as for research and theory on the measurement of mood and emotion.

Contrast effects in priming paradigms: Implications for theory and research on implicit attitudes.

Contrast effects have been studied in dozens of experimental paradigms, including the measurement of attitudes in the social psychological literature. However, nearly all of this work has been conducted using explicit reports. In the present research the authors employed a variety of different types of priming tasks in order to gain insight into the nature of contrast effects and the role that automatic processes might play in their emergence. They report 6 experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2 the replicability and robustness of automatized contrast effects across 2 types of implicit tasks are established. Experiments 3-6 were conducted in order to further understand the nature of these effects and whether they are best understood in terms of spreading activation vs. response-based models of priming. In the course of accounting for their findings, the authors propose and validate a response-mapping framework, which provides insight into some longstanding ambiguities in the priming literature. Implications for theories of contrast and models of evaluative priming are discussed.

Walking the tightrope: communicating overdiagnosis in modern healthcare

Communication that empowers the public, patients, clinicians, and policy makers to think differently about overdiagnosis will help support a more sustainable healthcare future for all, argue Kirsten McCaffery and colleagues

Blocks, ovals, or people? Icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs.

Background. Research has demonstrated that icon arrays (also called “pictographs”) are an effective method of communicating risk statistics and appear particularly useful to less numerate and less graphically literate people. Yet research is very limited regarding whether icon type affects how people interpret and remember these graphs. Methods. 1502 people age 35–75 from a demographically diverse online panel completed a cardiovascular risk calculator based on Framingham data using their actual age, weight, and other health data. Participants received their risk estimate in an icon array graphic that used 1 of 6 types of icons: rectangular blocks, filled ovals, smile/frown faces, an outline of a person’s head and shoulders, male/female “restroom” person icons (gender matched), or actual head-and-shoulder photographs of people of varied races (gender matched). In each icon array, blue icons represented cardiovascular events and gray icons represented those who would not experience an event. We measured perceived risk magnitude, approximate recall, and opinions about the icon arrays, as well as subjective numeracy and an abbreviated measure of graphical literacy. Results. Risk recall was significantly higher with more anthropomorphic icons (restroom icons, head outlines, and photos) than with other icon types, and participants rated restroom icons as most preferred. However, while restroom icons resulted in the highest correlations between perceived and actual risk among more numerate/graphically literate participants, they performed no better than other icon types among less numerate/graphically literate participants. Conclusions. Icon type influences both risk perceptions and risk recall, with restroom icons in particular resulting in improved outcomes. However, optimal icon types may depend on numeracy and/or graphical literacy skills.

Informed Decision Making: Assessment of the Quality of Physician Communication about Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment.

Introduction. Little is known about how physicians present diagnosis and treatment planning in routine practice in preference-sensitive treatment decisions. We evaluated completeness and quality of informed decision making in localized prostate cancer post biopsy encounters. Methods. We analyzed audio-recorded office visits of 252 men with presumed localized prostate cancer (Gleason 6 and Gleason 7 scores) who were seeing 45 physicians at 4 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Data were collected between September 2008 and May 2012 in a trial of 2 decision aids (DAs). Braddock’s previously validated Informed Decision Making (IDM) system was used to measure quality. Latent variable models for ordinal data examined the relationship of IDM score to treatment received. Results. Mean IDM score showed modest quality (7.61±2.45 out of 18) and high variability. Treatment choice and risks and benefits were discussed in approximately 95% of encounters. However, in more than one-third of encounters, physicians provided a partial set of treatment options and omitted surveillance as a choice. Informing quality was greater in patients treated with surveillance (β = 1.1, p = .04). Gleason score (7 vs 6) and lower age were often cited as reasons to exclude surveillance. Patient preferences were elicited in the majority of cases, but not used to guide treatment planning. Encounter time was modestly correlated with IDM score (r = 0.237, p = .01). DA type was not associated with IDM score. Discussion. Physicians informed patients of options and risks and benefits, but infrequently engaged patients in core shared decision-making processes. Despite patients having received DAs, physicians rarely provided an opportunity for preference-driven decision making. More attention to the underused patient decision-making and engagement elements could result in improved shared decision making.

Influence of “GERD” Label on Parents’ Decision to Medicate Infants

BACKGROUND: The factors that drive overtreatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are not well understood, but it has been proposed that the use of the “GERD” disease label could perpetuate use of medication in otherwise healthy infants. METHODS: To determine if use of the disease label GERD influences parents’ perceived need to medicate an infant, we surveyed parents in a general pediatric clinic. Parents were given a hypothetical clinical scenario describing an infant who cries and spits up excessively but is otherwise healthy. Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, parents were randomized to receive a scenario in which the doctor either gave a diagnosis of GERD or did not provide a disease label; additionally, half of parents were told that existing medications are probably ineffective, whereas the rest were not given any effectiveness information. We measured parent interest in medication, perception of illness severity, and appreciation of medication offer. RESULTS: Parents who received a GERD diagnosis were interested in medicating their infant, even when they were told that the medications are likely ineffective. However, parents not given a disease label were interested in medication only when medication effectiveness was not discussed (and hence likely assumed). CONCLUSIONS: Labeling an otherwise healthy infant as having a “disease” increased parents’ interest in medicating their infant when they were told that medications are ineffective. These findings suggest that use of disease labels may promote overtreatment by causing people to believe that ineffective medications are both useful and necessary.

Combining deliberation and intuition in patient decision support

OBJECTIVE To review the strengths and weaknesses of deliberative and intuitive processes in the context of patient decision support and to discuss implications for decision aid (DA) design. METHODS Conceptual review of the strengths and weaknesses of intuitive and analytical decision making and applying these findings to the practice of DA design. RESULTS DAs combine several important goals: providing information, helping to clarify treatment related values, supporting preference construction processes, and facilitating more active engagement in decision making. Many DAs encourage patients to approach a decision analytically, without solid theoretical or empirical grounding for this approach. Existing research in other domains suggests that both intuition and deliberation may support decision making. We discuss implications for patient decision support and challenge researchers to determine when combining these processes leads to better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Intuitive and analytical decision processes may have complementary effects in achieving the desired outcomes of patient decision support. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS DA developers should be aware that tools solely targeted at supporting deliberation may limit DA effectiveness and harm preference construction processes. Patients may be better served by combined strategies that draw on the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both deliberative and intuitive processes.

Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods A Systematic Review

Background. Values clarification is a recommended element of patient decision aids. Many different values clarification methods exist, but there is little evidence synthesis available to guide design decisions. Purpose. To describe practices in the field of explicit values clarification methods according to a taxonomy of design features. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted data about decisions addressed; use of theories, frameworks, and guidelines; and 12 design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 110 articles describing 98 explicit values clarification methods. Most of these addressed decisions in cancer or reproductive health, and half addressed a decision between just 2 options. Most used neither theory nor guidelines to structure their design. “Pros and cons” was the most common type of values clarification method. Most methods did not allow users to add their own concerns. Few methods explicitly presented tradeoffs inherent in the decision, supported an iterative process of values exploration, or showed how different options aligned with users’ values. Limitations. Study selection criteria and choice of elements for the taxonomy may have excluded values clarification methods or design features. Conclusions. Explicit values clarification methods have diverse designs but can be systematically cataloged within the structure of a taxonomy. Developers of values clarification methods should carefully consider each of the design features in this taxonomy and publish adequate descriptions of their designs. More research is needed to study the effects of different design features.

Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions

Objective. To assess the influence of patient preferences and urologist recommendations in treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate cancer. Methods. We enrolled 257 men with clinically localized prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen <20; Gleason score 6 or 7) seen by urologists (primarily residents and fellows) in 4 Veterans Affairs medical centers. We measured patients’ baseline preferences prior to their urology appointments, including initial treatment preference, cancer-related anxiety, and interest in sex. In longitudinal follow-up, we determined which treatment patients received. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the factors that predicted treatment received (active treatment v. active surveillance) and urologist recommendations. We also conducted a directed content analysis of recorded clinical encounters to determine if urologists discussed patients’ interest in sex. Results. Patients’ initial treatment preferences did not predict receipt of active treatment versus surveillance, Δχ2(4) = 3.67, P = 0.45. Instead, receipt of active treatment was predicted primarily by urologists’ recommendations, Δχ2(2) = 32.81, P < 0.001. Urologists’ recommendations, in turn, were influenced heavily by medical factors (age and Gleason score) but were unrelated to patient preferences, Δχ2(6) = 0, P = 1. Urologists rarely discussed patients’ interest in sex (<15% of appointments). Conclusions. Patients’ treatment decisions were based largely on urologists’ recommendations, which, in turn, were based on medical factors (age and Gleason score) and not on patients’ personal views of the relative pros and cons of treatment alternatives.