IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v44y1997i5p647-656.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of decision analysis in informed consent: Choosing between intuition and systematicity

Author

Listed:
  • Ubel, P. A.
  • Loewenstein, G.

Abstract

An important goal of informed consent is to present information to patients so that they can decide which medical option is best for them, according to their values. Research in cognitive psychology has shown that people are rapidly overwhelmed by having to consider more than a few options in making choices. Decision analysis provides a quantifiable way to assess patients' values, and it eliminates the burden of integrating these values with probabilistic information. In this paper we evaluate the relative importance of intuition and systematicity in informed consent. We point out that there is no gold standard for optimal decision making in decisions that hinge on patient values. We also point out that in some such situations it is too early to assume that the benefits of systematicity outweigh the benefits of intuition. Research is needed to address the question of which situations favor the use of intuitive approaches of decision making and which call for a more systematic approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Ubel, P. A. & Loewenstein, G., 1997. "The role of decision analysis in informed consent: Choosing between intuition and systematicity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 647-656, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:5:p:647-656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(96)00217-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Malcolm Man-Son-Hing & Brian F. Gage & Alan A. Montgomery & Alistair Howitt & Richard Thomson & P. J. Devereaux & Joanne Protheroe & Tom Fahey & David Armstrong & Andreas Laupacis, 2005. "Preference-Based Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Clinical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 548-559, September.
    2. Bower, Peter & King, Michael & Nazareth, Irwin & Lampe, Fiona & Sibbald, Bonnie, 2005. "Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: Conceptual framework and implications for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 685-695, August.
    3. Jonas, Eva & Frey, Dieter, 2003. "Information search and presentation in advisor-client interactions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 154-168, July.
    4. George Loewenstein, 2005. "Projection Bias in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 96-105, January.
    5. Sophie Bienenstock & Maïva Ropaul, 2018. "On the benefits of being naive: the choice of contract duration with projection bias," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 469-496, June.
    6. Burgess, Michael M., 2007. "Proposing modesty for informed consent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2284-2295, December.
    7. Little, Miles & Jordens, Christopher F.C. & McGrath, Catherine & Montgomery, Kathleen & Kerridge, Ian & Carter, Stacy M., 2007. "Pragmatic pluralism: Mutual tolerance of contested understandings between orthodox and alternative practitioners in autologous stem cell transplantation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(7), pages 1512-1523, April.
    8. Coleman-Brueckheimer, Kate & Spitzer, Joseph & Koffman, Jonathan, 2009. "Involvement of Rabbinic and communal authorities in decision-making by haredi Jews in the UK with breast cancer: An interpretative phenomenological analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 323-333, January.
    9. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.

    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:eee:socmed:v:44:y:1997:i:5:p:647-656. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.