IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i7p884-898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Aid Influences on Factors Associated with Patient Empowerment prior to Cancer Treatment Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Dana L. Alden

Abstract

Background. Despite progress, models that incorporate antecedent and mediating factors associated with shared decision making (SDM)–related outcomes remain limited. An experimental study tests patient decision aid (DA) effects on a network of antecedents and mediators associated with patient empowerment prior to a medical decision-making consultation regarding cancer treatment. Methods. A pilot study initially evaluated measurement scales, model fit, and the overall effect of the DA experience. The pilot compared matched treatment and control group samples of US adult online panel members exposed to a vignette about meeting their dermatologist to decide on skin cancer treatment. The treatment group also experienced a skin cancer DA with treatment options and value clarification activity, while the control group did not. The main study employed a randomized experimental design to formally test hypothesized path coefficients across the groups. Results. The pilot study suggested an overall enhanced DA effect on self-empowerment. In the experimental study, the DA experience strengthened the direct path from desire for medical information to self-empowerment and the indirect path from comprehension/participation confidence to self-empowerment through cancer attitude. The DA had no strengthening effect on the direct path from life satisfaction to self-empowerment, but in the DA condition, the factor appeared to play a role by contributing to the enhanced association between confidence and cancer attitude. Conclusion. Evidence from this research indicates that experiencing a DA prior to treatment decision making affects patient empowerment through a network that includes desire for information, life satisfaction, and multiple mediators. The studies also demonstrate the role that theory-based, multigroup structural equation modeling (SEM) can play in increasing understanding of DA effects. Such understanding is critical to improving SDM between patients and their physicians.

Suggested Citation

  • Dana L. Alden, 2014. "Decision Aid Influences on Factors Associated with Patient Empowerment prior to Cancer Treatment Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(7), pages 884-898, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:7:p:884-898
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14536780
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14536780
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14536780?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    2. Alden, Dana L. & Friend, John & Schapira, Marilyn & Stiggelbout, Anne, 2014. "Cultural targeting and tailoring of shared decision making technology: A theoretical framework for improving the effectiveness of patient decision aids in culturally diverse groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Shah, Mansi B. & Bentley, John P. & McCaffrey III, David J., 2006. "Evaluations of care by adults following a denial of an advertisement-related prescription drug request: The role of expectations, symptom severity, and physician communication style," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 888-899, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alden, Dana L. & Friend, John & Fraenkel, Liana & Jibaja-Weiss, Maria, 2018. "The effects of culturally targeted patient decision aids on medical consultation preparation for Hispanic women in the U.S.: Results from four randomized experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 17-25.
    2. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    3. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    4. Yi He & Qimei Chen & Dana L. Alden, 2016. "Time will tell: managing post-purchase changes in brand attitude," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 791-805, November.
    5. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    6. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    7. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    8. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    9. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    10. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    11. Scherr, Sebastian & Reifegerste, Doreen & Arendt, Florian & van Weert, Julia C.M. & Alden, Dana L., 2022. "Family involvement in medical decision making in Europe and the United States: A replication and extension in five Countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    12. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    13. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    14. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    15. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    16. Yoko Ueno & Mayumi Kako & Mitsuko Ohira & Hitoshi Okamura, 2020. "Shared decision‐making for women facing an unplanned pregnancy: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1186-1196, December.
    17. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    18. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    19. Våga, Bodil Bø & Moland, Karen Marie & Evjen-Olsen, Bjørg & Blystad, Astrid, 2014. "Reflections on informed choice in resource-poor settings: The case of infant feeding counselling in PMTCT programmes in Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 22-29.
    20. Antonius Schneider & Magdalena Wübken & Klaus Linde & Markus Bühner, 2014. "Communicating and Dealing with Uncertainty in General Practice: The Association with Neuroticism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-7, July.

    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:34:y:2014:i:7:p:884-898. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.