scholarly journals Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107629
Author(s):  
EJ Jardas ◽  
David Wasserman ◽  
David Wendler

The patient preference predictor (PPP) is a proposed computer-based algorithm that would predict the treatment preferences of decisionally incapacitated patients. Incorporation of a PPP into the decision-making process has the potential to improve implementation of the substituted judgement standard by providing more accurate predictions of patients’ treatment preferences than reliance on surrogates alone. Yet, critics argue that methods for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients should be judged on a number of factors beyond simply providing them with the treatments they would have chosen for themselves. These factors include the extent to which the decision-making process recognises patients’ freedom to choose and relies on evidence the patient themselves would take into account when making treatment decisions. These critics conclude that use of a PPP should be rejected on the grounds that it is inconsistent with these factors, especially as they relate to proper respect for patient autonomy. In this paper, we review and evaluate these criticisms. We argue that they do not provide reason to reject use of a PPP, thus supporting efforts to develop a full-scale PPP and to evaluate it in practice.

2019 ◽  
pp. 454-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi F. Dale

The consumption process of travel decision making, is influenced by a number of factors and a substantial body of decision making literature in the form of the broader ‘models of consumer behaviour' has been adapted to attempt to describe this process. Existing ‘foundation models' present variables such as personal characteristics and attitudes as factors that affect the vacation decision making process, but fail to discuss the extent to which gender and technology preferences influence decisions and destination choice. Economic models are based on utility theory as a decision making framework, however, they do not allow for the other consumer oriented variables. Current models (economic or otherwise) focus on individuals and their decision making process without a combined consideration of information search and technology gendered preferences and the impact they have on choosing a destination for a vacation.


Author(s):  
Patricia J. Robinson

Perhaps the most important issue in the thoughtful commentary provided by Obraztsova and Alloy is that of clinician choice in treatment selection. Many factors influence the decision-making process, and the evidence for possible treatment approaches, the training background of the clinician, and the feasibility of implementation are heavy-hitters. Other factors include patient preference and the context of care. In the case of Ruby, Drs. Peterson and Dr. Marks selected ACT for all of these reasons and more....


1990 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-224
Author(s):  
Nancy L. Szaflarski

The issue of whether or not the life-sustaining treatments (LST) of critical care is warranted for patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) experiencing acute respiratory failure has been raised. Factors that have contributed to this issue include the AIDS epidemic, the high costs of critical care, limited intensive care resources, high mortality, prolonged suffering, and the effects on caregivers in delivering futile care. This article examines this issue from the ethicality of the decision-making process regarding LST in context with medical futility, patient autonomy, and discussion among patients and caregivers. The allocation of critical care resources for AIDS patients with respiratory failure is analyzed from the viewpoint of distributive justice. The nursing implications of providing critical care to these patients and their families are discussed as well as needed areas of research.


2010 ◽  
pp. 307-320
Author(s):  
Fatih Oguz

This chapter describes a research study with an objective to explore and describe decision factors related to technology adoption. The study utilized theories of diffusion of innovations and communities of practice as frameworks and a case study of Web services (WS) technology in the digital library (DL) environment to develop an understanding of the decision-making process. A qualitative case study approach was used to investigate the research problems and data was collected through semistructured interviews, documentary evidence (e.g., meeting minutes), and a comprehensive member check. Face-to-face and phone interviews were conducted with respondents from five different DL programs in the U.S., selected based on distinctive characteristics (e.g., size of the DL program). Findings of the research suggest that the decision-making process is a complex procedure in which a number of factors are considered when making WS adoption decisions. These factors are categorized as organizational, individual, and technology-specific factors.


2009 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathaniel Kendall-Taylor

A person-centered case-study approach was used to account for treatment choices made by families of children with epilepsy seizure disorders in Kilifi, Kenya. Observations of individual families and treatment providers suggest that the local cultural system of illness classification and the process of assessing treatment results are fundamental influences on family decisions to seek treatment for childhood seizure disorders. The findings also indicate that the dominance of these two factors shifts throughout the illness experience. Family classification of seizures and cultural perceptions of their causation are primary in initial treatment seeking, while the perception of results of the last treatment sought dominates subsequent treatment decisions. External factors, including pressure from individuals outside the family, and financial and time resources, are described as secondary constraining factors in the decision making process. A model is presented to summarize the decision making process. The model accounts for treatment seeking in families of children with seizure disorders in coastal Kenya but may also help explain how families manage other chronic conditions.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akila Visvanathan ◽  
Gillian Mead ◽  
Martin Dennis ◽  
William Whiteley ◽  
Fergus Doubal ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Treatment decision-making by family members on behalf of patients with major stroke can be challenging because of the shock of the diagnosis and lack of knowledge of the patient’s treatment preferences. We aimed to understand how, and why, family members made certain treatment decisions, and explored their information and support needs. Method Semi-structured interviews with family members (n=24) of patients with major stroke, within two weeks of hospital admission. Data were analysed thematically. Results Families’ approach to treatment decision-making lay on a spectrum according to the patient’s state of health pre-stroke (i.e. patient’s prior experience of illness and functional status) and any views expressed about treatment preferences in the event of life-threatening illness. Support and information needs varied according to where they were on this spectrum. At one extreme, family members described deciding not to initiate life-extending treatments from the outset because of the patients’ deteriorating health and preferences expressed pre-stroke. Information from doctors about poor prognosis was merely used to confirm this decision. In the middle of the spectrum were family members of patients who had been moderately independent pre-stroke. They described the initial shock of the diagnosis and how they had initially wanted all treatments to continue. However, once they overcame their shock, and had gathered relevant information, including information about poor prognosis from doctors, they decided that life-extending treatments were no longer appropriate. Many reported this process to be upsetting and expressed a need for psychological support. At the other end of the spectrum were family members of previously independent patients whose preferences pre-stroke had not been known. Family members described feeling extremely distressed at such an unexpected situation and wanting all treatments to continue. They described needing psychological support and hope that the patient would survive. Conclusion The knowledge that family members’ treatment decision-making approaches lay on a spectrum depending on the patient’s state of health and stated preferences pre-stroke may allow doctors to better prepare for discussions regarding the patient’s prognosis. This may enable doctors to provide information and support that is tailored towards family members’ needs.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2624-2624
Author(s):  
Joanne S. Buzaglo ◽  
Victoria Kennedy ◽  
Clare Karten ◽  
Melissa F. Miller ◽  
Anne Morris ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The US prevalence of multiple myeloma (MM) is estimated at 83,118 as of January 1, 2011(SEER, 2014), and about 24,050 new MM cases will be diagnosed in 2014 (ACS, 2014). With advances in treatment, MM patients are living longer and are confronted with increasingly complex therapeutic decisions. Frequently patients are not fully prepared to discuss the possible treatment options effectively with their provider. Methods: From July 2013 to July 2014, the Cancer Support Community (CSC) registered 495 people living with MM to the Cancer Experience Registry: MM, an online initiative designed to investigate and raise awareness about the psychosocial impact of MM. Registrants were recruited through an outreach program that included the CSC and The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) network of community-based affiliates/chapters, CSC and LLS online communities, CSC’s helpline and LLS’s information resource center, other advocacy organizations, social and other media channels. Those who registered completed a survey about their MM history, status and treatment. Results: General: 406 (82%) registrants responded to the questionnaire. The present analysis is limited to 280 US based registrants who answered on treatment decision making. The participant median age was 64 years; 54% female, 87% Caucasian, 9.5% African American. Total annual income: 35% <$40K; 35% $40-79K; 30% at least $80K. Median time since MM diagnosis was 4.5 years. 26% did not know stage of their MM. Among those who reported stage: 20% stage I; 18% stage II; 48% Stage III; 10% “other”. 40% reported they experienced a relapse of MM. Treatment Decision Making: Prior to making a treatment decision, 94% reported receiving information about their diagnosis, and 80% received information about their treatment options. 45% described their level of knowledge about treatment options as “quite a bit” or “very much”. However, 33% reported they were not knowledgeable regarding MM treatment (21% “not at all” and 12% “a little bit”). 40% received treatment decision support prior to therapy, and 36% would have liked more support. 16% had little or no involvement in their treatment decision-making process. 25% did not feel they had a treatment choice, and 20% reported they did not have enough time to make a treatment decision. Two-thirds (66%) received a second opinion about medical treatment. 64% of registrants reported that a member of their health care team spoke to them about cancer clinical trials, and 29% participated in a clinical trial. Patient Satisfaction and Empowerment. A majority of MM registrants were satisfied with various aspects of the treatment decision-making process: outcome of the treatment(s) received (82%); doctor’s explanation of the benefits (74%); how they arrived at a decision (71%); how much they participated in making the decision (68%); and their doctor’s explanation of the risks and side effects (67%). 66% received a second opinion about medical treatment. Those who got a second opinion were slightly more satisfied with how they arrived at their treatment decision (OR=1.61; 95% CI=0.90, 2.88; p=0.11), but getting a second opinion did not affect patient’s satisfaction with treatment outcomes. Those who wrote down a list of questions prior to their first visit to discuss treatment options with their health care provider felt significantly more prepared to discuss their treatment options (p<0.01). 65% and 70%, respectively, thought it would be important to get help with gathering information or developing a written list of questions before meeting with their cancer specialists. Conclusion: Although nearly three-quarters of the sample were satisfied with various aspects of treatment decision-making, including communication about treatment decisions with physicians, more than one-third of MM patients thought they had no choice or felt rushed in making a decision. Those who prepared a list of questions prior to a consultation with the doctor felt significantly more prepared to make appropriate decisions. While most patients reported receiving information about their treatment options, less than half report being knowledgeable about treatment options, and a significant proportion reported not having enough knowledge or support to fully engage in treatment decisions. Further efforts are needed to address gaps in the delivery of treatment decision support to MM patients. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document