IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i8p1010-1022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

My Lived Experiences Are More Important Than Your Probabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Holmberg
  • Erika A. Waters
  • Katie Whitehouse
  • Mary Daly
  • Worta McCaskill-Stevens

Abstract

Background : Decision-making experts emphasize that understanding and using probabilistic information are important for making informed decisions about medical treatments involving complex risk–benefit tradeoffs. Yet empirical research demonstrates that individuals may not use probabilities when making decisions. Objectives : To explore decision making and the use of probabilities for decision making from the perspective of women who were risk-eligible to enroll in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR). Methods : We conducted narrative interviews with 20 women who agreed to participate in STAR and 20 women who declined. The project was based on a narrative approach. Analysis included the development of summaries of each narrative, and thematic analysis with developing a coding scheme inductively to code all transcripts to identify emerging themes. Results : Interviewees explained and embedded their STAR decisions within experiences encountered throughout their lives. Such lived experiences included but were not limited to breast cancer family history, a personal history of breast biopsies, and experiences or assumptions about taking tamoxifen or medicines more generally. Conclusions : Women’s explanations of their decisions about participating in a breast cancer chemoprevention trial were more complex than decision strategies that rely solely on a quantitative risk–benefit analysis of probabilities derived from populations In addition to precise risk information, clinicians and risk communicators should recognize the importance and legitimacy of lived experience in individual decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Holmberg & Erika A. Waters & Katie Whitehouse & Mary Daly & Worta McCaskill-Stevens, 2015. "My Lived Experiences Are More Important Than Your Probabilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 1010-1022, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:1010-1022
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15594382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15594382
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15594382?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aronowitz, Robert, 2008. "Framing disease: An underappreciated mechanism for the social patterning of health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-9, July.
    2. Rockhill, B., 2001. "The privatization of risk," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(3), pages 365-368.
    3. Valerie F. Reyna, 2008. "A Theory of Medical Decision Making and Health: Fuzzy Trace Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 850-865, November.
    4. Aronowitz, Robert, 2008. "Rejoinder to commentaries on "Framing disease: an underappreciated mechanism for the social patterning of health"," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 20-22, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meershoek, Agnes & Krumeich, Anja & Vos, Rein, 2011. "The construction of ethnic differences in work incapacity risks: Analysing ordering practices of physicians in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 15-22, January.
    2. Lavanya Vijayasingham & Uma Jogulu & Pascale Allotey, 2018. "Enriching the Organizational Context of Chronic Illness Experience Through an Ethics of Care Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 29-40, November.
    3. Hogan, Vijaya K. & de Araujo, Edna M. & Caldwell, Kia L. & Gonzalez-Nahm, Sarah N. & Black, Kristin Z., 2018. "“We black women have to kill a lion everyday”: An intersectional analysis of racism and social determinants of health in Brazil," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 96-105.
    4. Jutel, Annemarie, 2010. "Framing disease: The example of female hypoactive sexual desire disorder," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1084-1090, April.
    5. Gollust, Sarah E. & Eboh, Ijeoma & Barry, Colleen L., 2012. "Picturing obesity: Analyzing the social epidemiology of obesity conveyed through US news media images," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(10), pages 1544-1551.
    6. Gollust, Sarah E. & Lantz, Paula M., 2009. "Communicating population health: Print news media coverage of type 2 diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1091-1098, October.
    7. Gross, Christiane & Schübel, Thomas & Hoffmann, Rasmus, 2015. "Picking up the pieces—Applying the DISEASE FILTER to health data," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(4), pages 549-557.
    8. Epstein, Steven & Mamo, Laura, 2017. "The proliferation of sexual health: Diverse social problems and the legitimation of sexuality," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 176-190.
    9. Volker Thoma & Elliott White & Asha Panigrahi & Vanessa Strowger & Irina Anderson, 2015. "Good Thinking or Gut Feeling? Cognitive Reflection and Intuition in Traders, Bankers and Financial Non-Experts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Gabriella Passerini & Laura Macchi & Maria Bagassi, 2012. "A methodological approach to ratio bias," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(5), pages 602-617, September.
    11. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    12. Mehdi Mourali & Zhiyong Yang, 2023. "Misperception of Multiple Risks in Medical Decision-Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(1), pages 25-47.
    13. K.S. Khroutski, 2002. "Epistemology of Civilised Man Diseases," E-LOGOS, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2002(1).
    14. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Timmons, Shane & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Public understanding of climate change and support for mitigation," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS135, June.
    16. Rasa Kanapickiene & Deimante Teresiene & Daiva Budriene & Greta Keliuotytė-Staniulėnienė & Jekaterina Kartasova, 2020. "The Impact Of Covid-19 On European Financial Markets And Economic Sentiment," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 14(1), pages 144-163.
    17. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    18. Heard, Claire Louise & Rakow, Tim, 2022. "Examining insensitivity to probability in evidence‐based communication of relative risks: the role of affect and communication format," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113810, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Bonnie Spring, 2008. "Health Decision Making: Lynchpin of Evidence-Based Practice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 866-874, November.
    20. Kevin E. Tiede & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2023. "How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 803-820, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:1010-1022. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.