Decision aids (DAs) provide patients with information about preference sensitive decisions in which patients' preferences are likely to play a key role in determining what the best decision is and allow them more time to process the information than they would in a typical clinical encounter. An international group of experts, the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, has established a list of content that decision aid developers are encouraged to put into DAs. However, it provided no guidance about how to present such content, or how to make sure such content does not create decision biases. Our original grant aimed to identify and reduce cognitive biases created by DAs. We identified multiple cognitive biases that could be created by DAs and have developed several practical techniques for reducing or eliminating these biases. But our work is not done. To extend our accomplishments and respond to the IPDAS recommendations, we are proposing to conduct research targeting several additional biases that are potentially created by DAs and developing techniques to eliminate or reduce them. In addition, we propose to conduct studies that focus not only on the role that cognition plays in people's decisions, but also the role of affect. We thus plan to identify the kind of decision biases likely to arise when patients use decision aids, regardless of whether those biases arise through cognitive or affective processes, and identify ways to reduce them. Specifically, we aim to explore four sources of biases relevant to decision aids: (1) presentation of ambiguous probabilities (2) presentation of contextual information about probabilities (3) people's affective reaction to health outcomes, and (4) people's methods of integrating probability and utility in a single decision. For each source, we will identify multiple factors which bias patient decisions. We propose to identify the scope of each problem, delineate the circumstances under which biases result, and test methods for reducing or eliminating the biases. All our studies will use materials from pre-existing decision aids. Our approach includes two distinct research stages. In the first stage, we use iterative randomized survey experiments to explore which decision aid elements generate bias. We will present people with hypothetical medical decisions, based on material from real decision aids, and vary aspects of the decision task across people, to test hypotheses about how to minimize decision biases. Our initial studies will consider a subset of the relevant factors, and follow-up studies will drill down on factors that are significant in our first experiments and also test additional factors not included due to power and complexity reasons. In the second stage, we will demonstrate the relevance of our first-stage results for patient care. For each source of bias, our research will culminate with a randomized trial of a debiasing technique delivered to a patient population. Relevance Statement Our research aims to improve patient decision aids, which are booklets, websites, or videos that provide patients with information about medical decisions and help them to make the decision that best matches their own preferences. While international standards exist for the content of decision aids, our results will help decision aid developers know how to best present the information in decision aids so as to avoid cognitive and emotional biases. This work is essential to ensuring that patients are fully informed and able to participate in decision making regarding their medical care. ? ? ?

Agency
National Institute of Health (NIH)
Institute
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Type
Research Project (R01)
Project #
5R01CA087595-07
Application #
7503430
Study Section
Health Care Technology and Decision Science (HTDS)
Program Officer
Nelson, Wendy
Project Start
2000-07-01
Project End
2012-07-31
Budget Start
2008-08-01
Budget End
2009-07-31
Support Year
7
Fiscal Year
2008
Total Cost
$429,874
Indirect Cost
Name
University of Michigan Ann Arbor
Department
Internal Medicine/Medicine
Type
Schools of Medicine
DUNS #
073133571
City
Ann Arbor
State
MI
Country
United States
Zip Code
48109
Scherr, Karen A; Fagerlin, Angela; Hofer, Timothy et al. (2017) Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions. Med Decis Making 37:56-69
Ubel, Peter A; Zhang, Cecilia J; Hesson, Ashley et al. (2016) Study Of Physician And Patient Communication Identifies Missed Opportunities To Help Reduce Patients' Out-Of-Pocket Spending. Health Aff (Millwood) 35:654-61
Martinez, Kathryn A; Fagerlin, Angela; Witteman, Holly O et al. (2016) What Matters to Women When Making Decisions About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention? Patient 9:149-59
Scherer, Laura D; Maynard, Andrew; Dolinoy, Dana C et al. (2014) The psychology of 'regrettable substitutions': Examining consumer judgements of Bisphenol A and its alternatives. Health Risk Soc 16:649-666
Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J; Witteman, Holly O; Dickson, Mark et al. (2014) Blocks, ovals, or people? Icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs. Med Decis Making 34:443-53
Angott, Andrea M; Comerford, David A; Ubel, Peter A (2013) Imagining life with an ostomy: does a video intervention improve quality-of-life predictions for a medical condition that may elicit disgust? Patient Educ Couns 91:113-9
Ubel, Peter A; Berry, Scott R; Nadler, Eric et al. (2012) In a survey, marked inconsistency in how oncologists judged value of high-cost cancer drugs in relation to gains in survival. Health Aff (Millwood) 31:709-17
Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J; Angott, Andrea M; Ubel, Peter A (2011) The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:79-87
Cornelissen, Evelyn; Urquhart, Robin; Chan, Vivian Wy et al. (2011) Creating a knowledge translation trainee collaborative: from conceptualization to lessons learned in the first year. Implement Sci 6:98
Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J; Windschitl, Paul D; Exe, Nicole et al. (2011) 'I'll do what they did"": social norm information and cancer treatment decisions. Patient Educ Couns 85:225-9

Showing the most recent 10 out of 38 publications