Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: A call for conceptual clarity

Wendy L. Nelson, Paul K.J. Han, Angela Fagerlin, Michael Stefanek, Peter A. Ubel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

86 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Health decision aids are a potentially valuable adjunct to patient-physician communication and decision making. Although the overarching goal of decision aids- to help patients make informed, preference-sensitive choices-is widely accepted, experts do not agree on the means to achieve this end. In this article, the authors critically examine the theoretical basis and appropriateness of 2 widely accepted criteria used to evaluate decision aids: values clarification and reduction of decisional conflict. First, they argue that although clarifying values is central to decision making under uncertainty, it is not clear that decision aids-as they have been conceived and operationalized so far-can and should be used to achieve this goal. The pursuit of clarifying values, particularly values clarification exercises, raises a number of ethical, methodological, and conceptual issues, and the authors suggest research questions that should be addressed before values clarification is routinely endorsed. Second, the authors argue that the goal of reducing decisional conflict is conceptually untenable and propose that it be eliminated as an objective of decision aids.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)609-618
Number of pages10
JournalMedical Decision Making
Volume27
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2007

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Decision Making
Uncertainty
Communication
Exercise
Physicians
Health
Research

Keywords

  • Decision aids
  • Decision making
  • Decisional conflict
  • Values clarification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K. J., Fagerlin, A., Stefanek, M., & Ubel, P. A. (2007). Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: A call for conceptual clarity. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 609-618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07306780

Rethinking the objectives of decision aids : A call for conceptual clarity. / Nelson, Wendy L.; Han, Paul K.J.; Fagerlin, Angela; Stefanek, Michael; Ubel, Peter A.

In: Medical Decision Making, Vol. 27, No. 5, 01.09.2007, p. 609-618.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nelson, WL, Han, PKJ, Fagerlin, A, Stefanek, M & Ubel, PA 2007, 'Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: A call for conceptual clarity', Medical Decision Making, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 609-618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07306780
Nelson, Wendy L. ; Han, Paul K.J. ; Fagerlin, Angela ; Stefanek, Michael ; Ubel, Peter A. / Rethinking the objectives of decision aids : A call for conceptual clarity. In: Medical Decision Making. 2007 ; Vol. 27, No. 5. pp. 609-618.
@article{3ae21aeb969340cab6dbaa30b0fd6b85,
title = "Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: A call for conceptual clarity",
abstract = "Health decision aids are a potentially valuable adjunct to patient-physician communication and decision making. Although the overarching goal of decision aids- to help patients make informed, preference-sensitive choices-is widely accepted, experts do not agree on the means to achieve this end. In this article, the authors critically examine the theoretical basis and appropriateness of 2 widely accepted criteria used to evaluate decision aids: values clarification and reduction of decisional conflict. First, they argue that although clarifying values is central to decision making under uncertainty, it is not clear that decision aids-as they have been conceived and operationalized so far-can and should be used to achieve this goal. The pursuit of clarifying values, particularly values clarification exercises, raises a number of ethical, methodological, and conceptual issues, and the authors suggest research questions that should be addressed before values clarification is routinely endorsed. Second, the authors argue that the goal of reducing decisional conflict is conceptually untenable and propose that it be eliminated as an objective of decision aids.",
keywords = "Decision aids, Decision making, Decisional conflict, Values clarification",
author = "Nelson, {Wendy L.} and Han, {Paul K.J.} and Angela Fagerlin and Michael Stefanek and Ubel, {Peter A.}",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0272989X07306780",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "609--618",
journal = "Medical Decision Making",
issn = "0272-989X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rethinking the objectives of decision aids

T2 - A call for conceptual clarity

AU - Nelson, Wendy L.

AU - Han, Paul K.J.

AU - Fagerlin, Angela

AU - Stefanek, Michael

AU - Ubel, Peter A.

PY - 2007/9/1

Y1 - 2007/9/1

N2 - Health decision aids are a potentially valuable adjunct to patient-physician communication and decision making. Although the overarching goal of decision aids- to help patients make informed, preference-sensitive choices-is widely accepted, experts do not agree on the means to achieve this end. In this article, the authors critically examine the theoretical basis and appropriateness of 2 widely accepted criteria used to evaluate decision aids: values clarification and reduction of decisional conflict. First, they argue that although clarifying values is central to decision making under uncertainty, it is not clear that decision aids-as they have been conceived and operationalized so far-can and should be used to achieve this goal. The pursuit of clarifying values, particularly values clarification exercises, raises a number of ethical, methodological, and conceptual issues, and the authors suggest research questions that should be addressed before values clarification is routinely endorsed. Second, the authors argue that the goal of reducing decisional conflict is conceptually untenable and propose that it be eliminated as an objective of decision aids.

AB - Health decision aids are a potentially valuable adjunct to patient-physician communication and decision making. Although the overarching goal of decision aids- to help patients make informed, preference-sensitive choices-is widely accepted, experts do not agree on the means to achieve this end. In this article, the authors critically examine the theoretical basis and appropriateness of 2 widely accepted criteria used to evaluate decision aids: values clarification and reduction of decisional conflict. First, they argue that although clarifying values is central to decision making under uncertainty, it is not clear that decision aids-as they have been conceived and operationalized so far-can and should be used to achieve this goal. The pursuit of clarifying values, particularly values clarification exercises, raises a number of ethical, methodological, and conceptual issues, and the authors suggest research questions that should be addressed before values clarification is routinely endorsed. Second, the authors argue that the goal of reducing decisional conflict is conceptually untenable and propose that it be eliminated as an objective of decision aids.

KW - Decision aids

KW - Decision making

KW - Decisional conflict

KW - Values clarification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35148812508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35148812508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0272989X07306780

DO - 10.1177/0272989X07306780

M3 - Article

C2 - 17873251

AN - SCOPUS:35148812508

VL - 27

SP - 609

EP - 618

JO - Medical Decision Making

JF - Medical Decision Making

SN - 0272-989X

IS - 5

ER -