IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i3p216-229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Other Ways of Knowing

Author

Listed:
  • Negin Hajizadeh
  • Melissa J. Basile
  • Andrzej Kozikowski
  • Meredith Akerman
  • Tara Liberman
  • Thomas McGinn
  • Michael A. Diefenbach

Abstract

Background. Patients with advanced-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may suffer severe respiratory exacerbations and need to decide between accepting life-sustaining treatments versus foregoing these treatments (choosing comfort care only). We designed the InformedTogether decision aid to inform this decision and describe results of a pilot study to assess usability focusing on participants’ trust in the content of the decision aid, acceptability, recommendations for improvement, and emotional reactions to this emotionally laden decision. Methods. Study participants ( N = 26) comprising clinicians, patients, and surrogates viewed the decision aid, completed usability tasks, and participated in interviews and focus groups assessing comprehension, trust, perception of bias, and perceived acceptability of InformedTogether. Mixed methods were used to analyze results. Results. Almost all participants understood the gist (general meaning) of InformedTogether. However, many lower literacy participants had difficulty answering the more detailed questions related to comprehension, especially when interpreting icon arrays, and many were not aware that they had misunderstood the information. Qualitative analysis showed a range of emotional reactions to the information. Participants with low verbatim comprehension frequently referenced lived experiences when answering knowledge questions, which we termed “alternative knowledge.†Conclusions. We found a range of emotional reactions to the information and frequent use of alternative knowledge frameworks for deriving meaning from the data. These observations led to insights into the impact of lived experiences on the uptake of biomedical information presented in decision aids. Communicating prognostic information could potentially be improved by eliciting alternative knowledge as a starting point to build communication, in particular for low literacy patients. Decision aids designed to facilitate shared decision making should elicit this knowledge and help clinicians tailor information accordingly.

Suggested Citation

  • Negin Hajizadeh & Melissa J. Basile & Andrzej Kozikowski & Meredith Akerman & Tara Liberman & Thomas McGinn & Michael A. Diefenbach, 2017. "Other Ways of Knowing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 216-229, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:216-229
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16683938
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16683938
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16683938?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. 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.
    2. Marilyn M. Schapira & Susan L. Davids & Timothy L. McAuliffe & Ann B. Nattinger, 2004. "Agreement Between Scales in the Measurement of Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 665-673, June.
    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Marina Martinez & Nitin Prabhakar & Kendra Drake & Bruce Coull & Jenny Chong & Leslie Ritter & Chelsea Kidwell, 2015. "Identification of Barriers to Stroke Awareness and Risk Factor Management Unique to Hispanics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm & Collins O. Airhihenbuwa & Robb Butler & Gretchen B. Chapman & Niels Haase & Benedikt Herrmann & Tasuku Igarashi & Shinobu Kitayama & Lars Korn & Ülla-Karin Nurm & Ber, 2016. "Improving Medical Decision Making and Health Promotion through Culture-Sensitive Health Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 811-833, October.
    6. John M. Friend & Dana L. Alden, 2021. "Improving Patient Preparedness and Confidence in Discussing Advance Directives for End-of-Life Care with Health Care Providers in the United States and Japan," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 60-73, January.
    7. Marisa Torres-Ruiz & Kaitlynn Robinson-Ector & Dionna Attinson & Jamie Trotter & Ayodola Anise & Steven Clauser, 2018. "A Portfolio Analysis of Culturally Tailored Trials to Address Health and Healthcare Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, August.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:215-237 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Vivianne Visschers, 2009. "Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1255-1264, September.
    11. Candace D. McNaughton & Kerri L. Cavanaugh & Sunil Kripalani & Russell L. Rothman & Kenneth A. Wallston, 2015. "Validation of a Short, 3-Item Version of the Subjective Numeracy Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 932-936, November.
    12. Ferrer, Rebecca A. & Lipkus, Isaac M. & Cerully, Jennifer L. & McBride, Colleen M. & Shepperd, James A. & Klein, William M.P., 2017. "Developing a scale to assess health regulatory focus," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 50-60.
    13. Dana L. Alden & John Friend & Ping Yein Lee & Yew Kong Lee & Lyndal Trevena & Chirk Jenn Ng & Sorapop Kiatpongsan & Khatijah Lim Abdullah & Miho Tanaka & Supanida Limpongsanurak, 2018. "Who Decides: Me or We? Family Involvement in Medical Decision Making in Eastern and Western Countries," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 14-25, January.
    14. Yun Jie, 2022. "Frequency or total number? A comparison of different presentation formats on risk perception during COVID-19," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 215-237, January.
    15. Niels Haase & Frank Renkewitz & Cornelia Betsch, 2013. "The Measurement of Subjective Probability: Evaluating the Sensitivity and Accuracy of Various Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1812-1828, October.
    16. Carmen Keller, 2011. "Using a Familiar Risk Comparison Within a Risk Ladder to Improve Risk Understanding by Low Numerates: A Study of Visual Attention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1043-1054, 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:37:y:2017:i:3:p:216-229. 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.