scholarly journals 41st Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; October 21, 2019; Portland, Oregon Keynote Address The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Confronting the Deadly Arithmetic of Compassion

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146832091431
Author(s):  
Paul Slovic
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
North American ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Keynote Address ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
The Face

In this keynote address delivered at the 41st Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, I discuss the psychology behind valuing human lives. Research confirms what we experience in our daily lives. We are inconsistent and sometimes incoherent in our valuation of human life. We value individual lives greatly, but these lives lose their value when they become part of a larger crisis. As a result, we do too little to protect human lives in the face of catastrophic threats from violence, natural disasters, and other causes. In medicine, this may pose difficult choices when treating individual patients with expensive therapies that keep hope alive but are not cost-effective for the population, for example, with end of life. Lifesaving judgments and decisions are highly context-dependent, subject to many forms of response mode and framing effects and affective biases. This has implications for risk communication and the concept of shared decision making. Slower, more introspective decision making may reduce some of the biases associated with fast, intuitive decisions. But slow thinking can also introduce serious biases. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of fast and slow thinking is a necessary first step toward valuing lives humanely and improving decisions.

scholarly journals 41st Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; October 21, 2019; Portland, Oregon Keynote Address The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Confronting the Deadly Arithmetic of Compassion

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-415
Author(s):  
Paul Slovic
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
North American ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Keynote Address ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
The Face

In this keynote address delivered at the 41st Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, I discuss the psychology behind valuing human lives. Research confirms what we experience in our daily lives. We are inconsistent and sometimes incoherent in our valuation of human life. We value individual lives greatly, but these lives lose their value when they become part of a larger crisis. As a result, we do too little to protect human lives in the face of catastrophic threats from violence, natural disasters, and other causes. In medicine, this may pose difficult choices when treating individual patients with expensive therapies that keep hope alive but are not cost-effective for the population, for example, with end of life. Lifesaving judgments and decisions are highly context-dependent, subject to many forms of response mode and framing effects and affective biases. This has implications for risk communication and the concept of shared decision making. Slower, more introspective decision making may reduce some of the biases associated with fast, intuitive decisions. But slow thinking can also introduce serious biases. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of fast and slow thinking is a necessary first step toward valuing lives humanely and improving decisions.

scholarly journals Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1035-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine D. Lippa ◽  
Markus A. Feufel ◽  
F. Eric Robinson ◽  
Valerie L. Shalin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Distributed Cognition ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Decision Space

Despite increasing prominence, little is known about the cognitive processes underlying shared decision making. To investigate these processes, we conceptualize shared decision making as a form of distributed cognition. We introduce a Decision Space Model to identify physical and social influences on decision making. Using field observations and interviews, we demonstrate that patients and physicians in both acute and chronic care consider these influences when identifying the need for a decision, searching for decision parameters, making actionable decisions Based on the distribution of access to information and actions, we then identify four related patterns: physician dominated; physician-defined, patient-made; patient-defined, physician-made; and patient-dominated decisions. Results suggests that (a) decision making is necessarily distributed between physicians and patients, (b) differential access to information and action over time requires participants to transform a distributed task into a shared decision, and (c) adverse outcomes may result from failures to integrate physician and patient reasoning. Our analysis unifies disparate findings in the medical decision-making literature and has implications for improving care and medical training.

scholarly journals Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans ◽  
Dima Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Institutional Constraints ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
The Ideal

In this paper it is first investigated to what extent the institutional goal and basic principles of shared decision making are compatible with the aim and rules for critical discussion. Next, some techniques that doctors may use to present their own treatment preferences strategically in a shared decision making process are discussed and evaluated both from the perspective of the ideal of shared decision making and from that of critical discussion.

‘Evidence-based’, ‘Cost-Effective’ and ‘Preference-Driven’ Medicine: Decision Analysis Based Medical Decision Making is the Pre-Requisite

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Dowie
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Three broad movements are seeking to change the world of medicine. The proponents of ‘evidence-based medicine’ are mainly concerned with ensuring that strategies of proven clinical effectiveness are adopted. Health economists are mainly concerned to establish that ‘cost-effectiveness’ and not ‘clinical effectiveness’ is the criterion used in determining option selection. A variety of patient support and public interest groups, including many health economists, are mainly concerned with ensuring that patient and public preferences drive clinical and policy decisions. This paper argues that decision analysis based medical decision making (DABMDM) constitutes the pre-requisite for the widespread introduction of the main principles embodied in evidence-based medicine, cost-effective medicine and preference-driven medicine; that, in the light of current modes of practice, seeking to promote these principles without a prior or simultaneous move to DABMDM is equivalent to asking the cart to move without the horse; and that in fact DABMDM subsumes and enjoins the valuable aspects of all three. Particular attention is paid to differentiating between DABMDM and EBM, by way of analysis of various expositions of EBM and examination of two recent empirical studies. EBM, as so far expounded, reflects a problem-solving attitude that results in a heavy concentration on RCTs and meta-analyses, rather than a broad decision making focus that concentrates on meeting all the requirements of a good clinical decision. The latter include: Ensuring that inferences from RCTs and meta-analyses to individual patients (or patient groups) are made explicitly; paying equally serious attention to evidence on values and costs as to clinical evidence; and accepting the inadequacy of ‘taking into account and bearing in mind’ as a way of integrating the multiple and distinct elements of a decision.

Patient attendance at molecular tumor board: A new means of shared decision making?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18001-e18001
Author(s):  
Timothy Lewis Cannon ◽  
Donald L. Trump ◽  
Laura Knopp ◽  
Hongkun Wang ◽  
Tiffani DeMarco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Team ◽  
Level Of Satisfaction ◽  
Holistic Method ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

e18001 Background: Patient engagement in medical decision-making improves patient related outcomes through compliance and patient satisfaction. The Inova Schar Cancer Institute (ISCI) has a weekly molecular tumor board (MTB) to match comprehensive genomic sequencing results with targeted therapies for patients. The ISCI MTB invites patients to attend and engage in the MTB discussion. We performed a pilot study to investigate the feasibility and satisfaction in patients who attended MTB. Methods: During the time of this study, August 2017 through October 2018, 139 patients were presented and all 20 who were able to attend MTB completed pre-and post- MTB surveys. Patients who did not attend were either not invited by their primary oncologist, unable to attend, or chose not to attend. The survey included six questions related to comprehension, engagement, and satisfaction with the treatment team. Results: There was a statistically significant change for the question “I am satisfied with how well informed I am about targeted therapy” with p = 0.016. All 20 patients answered positively that it was beneficial for them to attend. Many patients expressed concerns about their difficulty understanding the technical aspects of the meeting. Conclusions: Patients who attended MTB reported a higher level of satisfaction after MTB attendance as compared to before MTB. This may reflect a sense of engagement in shared decision making rather than comprehension of genomic information. A more holistic method of studying this practice would include sampling a larger patient population and a formal evaluation of the physicians’ experience with patients attending. Supported by philanthropic funds from the Inova Schar Cancer Institute.

scholarly journals Shared decision making in mild cognitive impairment

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea M. Mejia ◽  
Glenn E. Smith ◽  
Meredith Wicklund ◽  
Melissa J. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Medical Evidence

Shared decision making (SDM) occurs when patients and clinicians consider patients' values and preferences while discussing medical evidence to inform healthcare decisions. SDM enables patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to express values and preferences when making current healthcare decisions and presents a unique opportunity to inform future decision making in the case of further cognitive decline. However, clinicians often fail to facilitate SDM with patients with MCI. This review describes research pertaining to value solicitation, weighing of the medical evidence, and medical decision making for individuals with MCI, explores the role of caregivers, identifies barriers to and facilitators of SDM in MCI, and suggests strategies to optimize SDM for persons with MCI in neurology clinical practice. Further research is needed to identify more strategies for decision support for individuals affected by cognitive impairment.

scholarly journals Influence of response shift and disposition on patient-reported outcomes may lead to suboptimal medical decisions: a medical ethics perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris D. Hartog ◽  
Dick L. Willems ◽  
Wilbert B. van den Hout ◽  
Michael Scherer-Rath ◽  
Tom H. Oreel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Response Shift ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Medical Decisions ◽  
Patient Reports ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used for medical decision making, at the levels of both individual patient care and healthcare policy. Evidence increasingly shows that PROs may be influenced by patients’ response shifts (changes in interpretation) and dispositions (stable characteristics). Main text We identify how response shifts and dispositions may influence medical decisions on both the levels of individual patient care and health policy. We provide examples of these influences and analyse the consequences from the perspectives of ethical principles and theories of just distribution. Conclusion If influences of response shift and disposition on PROs and consequently medical decision making are not considered, patients may not receive optimal treatment and health insurance packages may include treatments that are not the most effective or cost-effective. We call on healthcare practitioners, researchers, policy makers, health insurers, and other stakeholders to critically reflect on why and how such patient reports are used.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document