IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i8p979-986.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Aids

Author

Listed:
  • James G. Dolan
  • Olena A. Cherkasky
  • Nancy Chin
  • Peter J. Veazie

Abstract

Background. Conscious and unconscious biases can influence how people interpret new information and make decisions. Current standards for creating decision aids, however, do not address this issue. Method. Using a 2×2 factorial design, we developed surveys that contained a decision scenario (involving a choice between aspirin or a statin drug to lower risk of heart attack) and a decision aid. Each aid presented identical information about reduction in heart attack risk and likelihood of a major side effect. They differed in whether the options were labeled and the amount of decisional guidance: information only (a balance sheet) versus information plus values clarification (a multicriteria decision analysis). We sent the surveys to members of 2 Internet survey panels. After using the decision aid, participants indicated their preferred medication. Those using a multicriteria decision aid also judged differences in the comparative outcome data provided for the 2 options and the relative importance of achieving benefits versus avoiding risks in making the decision. Results. The study sample size was 536. Participants using decision aids with unlabeled options were more likely to choose a statin: 56% versus 25% ( P

Suggested Citation

  • James G. Dolan & Olena A. Cherkasky & Nancy Chin & Peter J. Veazie, 2015. "Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 979-986, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:979-986
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15598532
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15598532
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15598532?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. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    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. Hongxun Xiang & Xia Heng & Boleng Zhai & Lichen Yang, 2024. "Digital and Culture: Towards More Resilient Urban Community Governance," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Kurek, Katarzyna A. & Heijman, Wim & van Ophem, Johan & Gędek, Stanisław & Strojny, Jacek, 2020. "The impact of geothermal resources on the competitiveness of municipalities: evidence from Poland," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1230-1239.
    4. Mehmet Yüksel, 2019. "A Model Proposal for the Evaluation of Chemistry Education in the Context of Learning Environment," Asian Journal of Education and Training, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 5(3), pages 488-494.
    5. James Dolan, 2010. "Multi-Criteria Clinical Decision Support," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 229-248, December.
    6. Bragge, Johanna, 2001. "Premediation analysis of the energy taxation dispute in Finland," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Dey, Prasanta Kumar & Bhattacharya, Arijit & Ho, William, 2015. "Strategic supplier performance evaluation: A case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organisation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 192-214.
    8. Haluk Gerçek & Birsen Karpak & Tülay Kılınçaslan, 2004. "A multiple criteria approach for the evaluation of the rail transit networks in Istanbul," Transportation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 203-228, May.
    9. Sadeghi, Mehdi & Ameli, Ahmad, 2012. "An AHP decision making model for optimal allocation of energy subsidy among socio-economic subsectors in Iran," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 24-32.
    10. Naief A. Aldossary & Jamal K. Alghamdi & Abdulaziz A. Alzahrani & Ali Alqahtany & Saleh H. Alyami, 2023. "Evaluation of Planned Sustainable Urban Development Projects in Al-Baha Region Using Analytical Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    12. Bukari, Dramani & Kemausuor, Francis & Quansah, David A. & Adaramola, Muyiwa S., 2021. "Towards accelerating the deployment of decentralised renewable energy mini-grids in Ghana: Review and analysis of barriers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    13. Wu, Cheng-Ru & Lin, Chin-Tsai & Tsai, Pei-Hsuan, 2010. "Evaluating business performance of wealth management banks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 971-979, December.
    14. Ronaldo Brito da Silva & Claudia Aparecida de Mattos, 2019. "Critical Success Factors of a Drug Traceability System for Creating Value in a Pharmaceutical Supply Chain (PSC)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-18, June.
    15. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    16. Rimvydas Labanauskis & Aurelija Kasparavičiūtė & Vida Davidavičienė & Dovilė Deltuvienė, 2018. "Towards quality assurance of the study process using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(2), pages 799-819, December.
    17. Mirza Sikalo & Almira Arnaut-Berilo & Adela Delalic, 2023. "A Combined AHP-PROMETHEE Approach for Portfolio Performance Comparison," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, March.
    18. Kadriye Burcu Yavuz Kumlu & Şule Tüdeş, 2019. "Determination of earthquake-risky areas in Yalova City Center (Marmara region, Turkey) using GIS-based multicriteria decision-making techniques (analytical hierarchy process and technique for order pr," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 96(3), pages 999-1018, April.
    19. Ivan Ligardo-Herrera & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango, 2019. "Application of the ANP to the prioritization of project stakeholders in the context of responsible research and innovation," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(3), pages 679-701, September.
    20. Sung-Lin Hsueh, 2012. "A Fuzzy Utility-Based Multi-Criteria Model for Evaluating Households’ Energy Conservation Performance: A Taiwanese Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-17, August.

    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:35:y:2015:i:8:p:979-986. 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.