IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i5p609-618.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity

Author

Listed:
  • Wendy L. Nelson

    (Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, nelsonw@mail.nih.gov)

  • Paul K. J. Han

    (Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland)

  • Angela Fagerlin

    (VA Health Services Research & Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan)

  • Michael Stefanek

    (Behavioral Research Center, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia)

  • Peter A. Ubel

    (VA Health Services Research & Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan)

Abstract

Health decision aids are a potentially valuable adjunct to patient-physician communication and decision making. Although the overarching goal of decision aids— to help patients make informed, preference-sensitive choices—is widely accepted, experts do not agree on the means to achieve this end. In this article, the authors critically examine the theoretical basis and appropriateness of 2 widely accepted criteria used to evaluate decision aids: values clarification and reduction of decisional conflict. First, they argue that although clarifying values is central to decision making under uncertainty, it is not clear that decision aids—as they have been conceived and operationalized so far—can and should be used to achieve this goal. The pursuit of clarifying values, particularly values clarification exercises, raises a number of ethical, methodological, and conceptual issues, and the authors suggest research questions that should be addressed before values clarification is routinely endorsed. Second, the authors argue that the goal of reducing decisional conflict is conceptually untenable and propose that it be eliminated as an objective of decision aids.

Suggested Citation

  • Wendy L. Nelson & Paul K. J. Han & Angela Fagerlin & Michael Stefanek & Peter A. Ubel, 2007. "Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 609-618, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:609-618
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07306780
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07306780
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07306780?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:2:p:141-146 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jerry Selvaseelan, 2018. "Development and Introduction of the Risk-Sentience Auxiliary Framework (RSAF) as an Enabler to the ISO 31000 and ISO 31010 for High-Risk Environments," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Maren Reder & Petra Kolip, 2017. "Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening? Results from a randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Jesús Molina-Mula & Julia Gallo-Estrada, 2020. "Impact of Nurse-Patient Relationship on Quality of Care and Patient Autonomy in Decision-Making," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.
    6. Victoria A. Shaffer & Lukas Hulsey, 2009. "Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(2), pages 141-146, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:609-618. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.