IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i3p266-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Helps People Make Values-Congruent Medical Decisions? Eleven Strategies Tested across 6 Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Holly O. Witteman

    (Universite Laval Faculte de medecine, Quebec, QC, Canada)

  • Anne-Sophie Julien

    (Universite Laval Faculte des sciences et de genie, Quebec, QC, Canada)

  • Ruth Ndjaboue

    (Universite Laval Faculte de medecine, Quebec, QC, Canada)

  • Nicole L. Exe

    (University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Valerie C. Kahn

    (University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Angela (Angie) Fagerlin

    (University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA)

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

    (University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

Abstract

Background. High-quality health decisions are often defined as those that are both evidence informed and values congruent. A values-congruent decision aligns with what matters to those most affected by the decision. Values clarification methods are intended to support values-congruent decisions, but their effects on values congruence are rarely evaluated. Methods. We tested 11 strategies, including the 3 most commonly used values clarification methods, across 6 between-subjects online randomized experiments in demographically diverse US populations ( n 1 = 1346, n 2 = 456, n 3 = 840, n 4 = 1178, n 5 = 841, n 6 = 2033) in the same hypothetical decision. Our primary outcome was values congruence. Decisional conflict was a secondary outcome in studies 3 to 6. Results. Two commonly used values clarification methods (pros and cons, rating scales) reduced decisional conflict but did not encourage values-congruent decisions. Strategies using mathematical models to show participants which option aligned with what mattered to them encouraged values-congruent decisions and reduced decisional conflict when assessed. Limitations. A hypothetical decision was necessary for ethical reasons, as we believed some strategies may harm decision quality. Later studies used more outcomes and covariates. Results may not generalize outside US-based adults with online access. We assumed validity and stability of values during the brief experiments. Conclusions. Failing to explicitly support the process of aligning options with values leads to increased proportions of values-incongruent decisions. Methods representing more than half of values clarification methods commonly in use failed to encourage values-congruent decisions. Methods that use models to explicitly show people how options align with their values offer more promise for helping people make decisions aligned with what matters to them. Decisional conflict, while arguably an important outcome in and of itself, is not an appropriate proxy for values congruence.

Suggested Citation

  • Holly O. Witteman & Anne-Sophie Julien & Ruth Ndjaboue & Nicole L. Exe & Valerie C. Kahn & Angela (Angie) Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2020. "What Helps People Make Values-Congruent Medical Decisions? Eleven Strategies Tested across 6 Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 266-278, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:3:p:266-278
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20904955
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20904955
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20904955?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. Holly O. Witteman & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Nicole Exe & Audrey Dupuis & Thierry Provencher & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher, 2015. "Risk Communication, Values Clarification, and Vaccination Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1801-1819, October.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:64-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, October.
    2. Alison E. Butler & Gretchen B. Chapman, 2022. "Don’t Throw Your Heart Away: Increased Transparency of Donor Utilization Practices in Transplant Center Report Cards Alters How Center Performance Is Evaluated," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 341-351, April.

    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. Kolotylo-Kulkarni, Malgorzata & Marakas, George M. & Xia, Weidong, 2024. "Understanding protective behavior and vaccination adoption among US individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A four-wave longitudinal study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Rowan Terrell & Abdallah Alami & Daniel Krewski, 2023. "Interventions for COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Vicki S. Freimuth & Amelia Jamison & Gregory Hancock & Donald Musa & Karen Hilyard & Sandra Crouse Quinn, 2017. "The Role of Risk Perception in Flu Vaccine Behavior among African‐American and White Adults in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2150-2163, November.
    4. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, October.

    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:40:y:2020:i:3:p:266-278. 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.