Decision aids for alternative techniques in urban storm management

1995 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Azzout ◽  
S. Barraud ◽  
F. N. Cres ◽  
E. Alfakih
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Urban Stormwater ◽  
Elimination Phase ◽  
Poor Understanding ◽  
Preliminary Study ◽  
Alternative Techniques ◽  
Urban Storm ◽  
Decision Making Tool

The choice of alternative techniques in urban stormwater drainage (infiltration and detention systems), in the course of a project, is most often made with a poor understanding of site constraints, and the possibilities afforded by these techniques. This gives rise to extra costs and also subsequent malfunctioning. To arrive at feasible choices, we have formalised the decision-making process, taking account of the multiple criteria and the large number of partners involved. At present, we are developing a decision-making tool for alternative techniques in urban stormwater management at the preliminary study stage. The first phase makes it possible to eliminate solutions which are unworkable (elimination phase). It is aimed at the designer. Work on the next phase (the decision-making phase), which is more complex, is in progress. It will make it possible, in collaboration with all the partners involved, to choose a stormwater drainage strategy which will best suit the objectives and the wishes of the partners. It uses multi-criteria methods.

scholarly journals Protocol for systematic review: patient decision aids for total hip and knee arthroplasty decision-making

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lissa Pacheco-Brousseau ◽  
Marylène Charette ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Stéphane Poitras
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract Background Total hip and knee arthroplasty are a highly performed surgery; however, patient satisfaction with surgery results and patient involvement in the decision-making process remains low. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are tools used in clinical practices to facilitate active patient involvement in healthcare decision-making. Nonetheless, PtDA effects have not been systematically evaluated for hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA) decision-making. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effect of patient decision aids compared to alternative of care on quality and process of decision-making when provided to adults with hip and knee osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA. Methods This systematic review will follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. This protocol was reported based on the PRISMA-P checklist guidelines. Studies will be searched in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Eligible studies will be randomized control trial (RCT) evaluating the effect of PtDA on TJA decision-making. Descriptive and meta-analysis of outcomes will include decision quality (knowledge and values-based choice), decisional conflict, patient involvement, decision-making process satisfaction, actual decision made, health outcomes, and harm(s). Risk of bias will be evaluated with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool for RCTs. Quality and strength of recommendations will be appraised with Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Discussion This review will provide a summary of RCT findings on PtDA effect on decision-making quality and process of adults with knee and hip osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA. Further, it will provide evidence comparing different types of PtDA used for TJA decision-making. This review is expected to inform further research on joint replacement decision-making quality and processes and on ways PtDAs facilitate shared decision-making for orthopedic surgery. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020171334

TO STANDARDISE OR TO PATENT? DEVELOPMENT OF A DECISION MAKING TOOL AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOUNG COMPANIES

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (08) ◽  
pp. 1640020 ◽  
Author(s):  
NIZAR ABDELKAFI ◽  
SERGIY MAKHOTIN ◽  
MARINA THUNS ◽  
ANNA POHLE ◽  
KNUT BLIND
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Influencing Factors ◽  
Knowledge Diffusion ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Need Support ◽  
Knowledge Protection ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
Intellectual Properties ◽  
Technology Resources ◽  
Decision Making Tool

Young companies need support concerning decisions related to intellectual properties. Entrepreneurs can resort to a menu of strategies, not only patenting. First, we explore the literature on standardisation and patenting and relate it to entrepreneurship to identify the internal and external influencing factors as well as the motives and risks related to decision making. Then, we conduct five case studies to explore these influencing factors, while trying to reconstruct the decision making process. We find five main factors: technology, resources, knowledge protection vs. knowledge diffusion, need for partnerships, and pace of innovation. Companies should use patents when their technology is patentable and knowledge protection is perceived essential. Standardisation is suitable when knowledge diffusion is more important than protection, and companies look for establishing new partnerships. These insights are integrated into a decision tree that provides guidance to young entrepreneurs to make an informed decision regarding intellectual properties.

What Is the Effectiveness of Patient Decision Aids for Cancer-Related Decisions? A Systematic Review Subanalysis

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen McAlpine ◽  
Krystina B. Lewis ◽  
Lyndal J. Trevena ◽  
Dawn Stacey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision

Purpose To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids when used with patients who face cancer-related decisions. Patients and Methods Two reviewers independently screened the 105 trials in the original 2017 Cochrane review to identify eligible trials of patient decision aids across the cancer continuum. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice and decision-making process. Secondary outcomes were patient behavior and health system effects. A meta-analysis was conducted for similar outcome measures. Results Forty-six trials evaluated patient decision aids for cancer care, including 27 on screening decisions (59%), 12 on treatments (26%), four on genetic testing (9%), and three on prevention (6%). Common decisions were aboutprostate cancer screening (30%), colorectal cancer screening (22%), breast cancer treatment (13%), and prostate cancer treatment (9%). Compared with the control groups (usual care or alternative interventions), the patient decision aid group improved the match between the chosen option and the features that mattered most to the patient as demonstrated by improved knowledge (weighted mean difference, 12.88 of 100; 95% CI, 9.87 to 15.89; 24 trials), accurate risk perception (risk ratio [RR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.56; six trials), and value-choice agreement (RR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.57 to 4.84; nine trials). Compared with controls, the patient decision aid group improved the decision-making process with decreased decisional conflict (weighted mean difference, −9.56 of 100; 95% CI, −13.90 to −5.23; 12 trials), reduced clinician-controlled decision making (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79; eight trials), and fewer patients being indecisive (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.78; nine trials). Conclusion Patient decision aids improve the attributes of the choice made and decision-making process for patients who face cancer-related decisions.

Decision aids to prepare patients for shared decision making: Two randomized controlled experiments on the impact of awareness of preference-sensitivity and personal motives

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Eggeling ◽  
Simone Korger ◽  
Ulrike Cress ◽  
Joachim Kimmerle ◽  
Martina Bientzle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Decision Strategies ◽  
The Impact

Objective: To participate in shared decision-making (SDM), patients need to understand their options and develop trust in their own decision-making abilities. Two experiments investigated the potential of decision aids (DAs) in preparing patients for SDM by raising awareness of preference-sensitivity (Study 1) and showing possible personal motives for decision-making (Study 2) in addition to providing information about the treatment options.Methods: Participants (Study 1: N=117; Study 2: N=217) were put into two scenarios (Study 1: cruciate ligament rupture; Study 2: contraception), watched a consultation video, and were randomized into one of three groups where they received additional information in the form of 1) narrative patient testimonials; 2) non-narrative decision strategies; 3) an unrelated text (control group). Results: Participants who viewed the patient testimonials or decision strategies felt better prepared for a decision (Study 1: P<.001, η²p=0.43; Study 2: P<.001, η²p=0.57) and evaluated the decision-making process more positively (Study 2: P<.001, η²p=0.13) than participants in the control condition. Decision certainty (Study 1: P<.001, η2p=0.05) and satisfaction (Study 1: P<.001, η2p=0.11; Study 2: P=.003, d=0.29) were higher across all conditions after watching the consultation video, and certainty and satisfaction were lower in the control condition (Study 2: P<.001, η²p=0.05).Discussion: DAs that explain preference-sensitivity and personal motives can be beneficial for improving people’s feelings of being prepared and their perception of the decision-making process. To reach decision certainty and satisfaction, being well informed of one’s options is particularly relevant. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and the design of DAs.

End-of-Life Decision Making in the Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patient: An Organizing Framework and Results of a Preliminary Study

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. S31-S39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daren K. Heyland ◽  
Joan Tranmer ◽  
Deb Feldman-Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Life Care ◽  
Preliminary Study ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Seriously Ill ◽  
Life Decision

Recent studies of patient/family satisfaction with end-of-life care suggest that improvements in communication and decision making are likely to have the greatest impact on improving the quality of end-of-life care. The apparent failure of recent studies specifically designed to improve decision making strongly suggest that there are powerful determinants of the decision making process that are not completely understood. In this paper, we present an organizing framework that describes the decision making process and breaks it into three analytic steps: information exchange, deliberation, and making the decision. In addition, we report the results of a preliminary study of end-of-life decision making that incorporates aspects of this organizing framework. Thirty-seven seriously ill hospitalized patients were interviewed. The majority wanted to share decisional responsibility with physicians. We demonstrated the feasibility of measuring certain aspects of the decision making process in such patients. By providing and using a framework related to end-of-life decision making, we hope to better understand the complex interaction and processes between dying patients, caregivers, and physicians.

scholarly journals Exploring Multicriteria Elicitation Model Based on Pairwise Comparisons: Building an Interactive Preference Adjustment Algorithm

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giancarllo Ribeiro Vasconcelos ◽  
Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Pairwise Comparisons ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Priority Vector ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
Effective Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Tool

Pairwise comparisons have been applied to several real decision making problems. As a result, this method has been recognized as an effective decision making tool by practitioners, experts, and researchers. Although methods based on pairwise comparisons are widespread, decision making problems with many alternatives and criteria may be challenging. This paper presents the results of an experiment used to verify the influence of a high number of preferences comparisons in the inconsistency of the comparisons matrix and identifies the influence of consistencies and inconsistencies in the assessment of the decision-making process. The findings indicate that it is difficult to predict the influence of inconsistencies and that the priority vector may or may not be influenced by low levels of inconsistencies, with a consistency ratio of less than 0.1. Finally, this work presents an interactive preference adjustment algorithm with the aim of reducing the number of pairwise comparisons while capturing effective information from the decision maker to approximate the results of the problem to their preferences. The presented approach ensures the consistency of a comparisons matrix and significantly reduces the time that decision makers need to devote to the pairwise comparisons process. An example application of the interactive preference adjustment algorithm is included.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document