Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making
Healthcare decisions, particularly those involving weighing benefits and harms that may significantly affect quality and/or length of life, should reflect patients' preferences. To support patients in making choices, patient decision aids and values clarification methods (VCM) in particular have been developed. VCM intend to help patients to determine the aspects of the choices that are important to their selection of a preferred option. Several types of VCM exist. However, they are often designed without clear reference to theory, which makes it difficult for their development to be systematic and internally coherent. Our goal was to provide theory-informed recommendations for the design of VCM. Process theories of decision making specify components of decision processes, thus, identify particular processes that VCM could aim to facilitate. We conducted a review of the MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases and of references to theories included in retrieved papers, to identify process theories of decision making. We selected a theory if (a) it fulfilled criteria for a process theory; (b) provided a coherent description of the whole process of decision making; and (c) empirical evidence supports at least some of its postulates. Four theories met our criteria: Image Theory, Differentiation and Consolidation theory, Parallel Constraint Satisfaction theory, and Fuzzy-trace Theory. Based on these, we propose that VCM should: help optimize mental representations; encourage considering all potentially appropriate options; delay selection of an initially favoured option; facilitate the retrieval of relevant values from memory; facilitate the comparison of options and their attributes; and offer time to decide. In conclusion, our theory-based design recommendations are explicit and transparent, providing an opportunity to test each in a systematic manner.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 77 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:77:y:2013:i:c:p:156-163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.