IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9137-d872398.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vigilance in the Decision-Making Process Regarding Termination of Pregnancy Following Prenatal Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Disease—Application of the ‘Conflict Decision-Making Model’

Author

Listed:
  • Yulia Gendler

    (Department of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel
    Department of Nursing, School of Health Professions, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel)

  • Einat Birk

    (Pediatric Heart Institute, Schneider Children’s Medical Center of Israel, Petah-Tikva 4920235, Israel
    Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel)

  • Nili Tabak

    (Department of Nursing, School of Health Professions, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel)

  • Silvia Koton

    (Department of Nursing, School of Health Professions, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel)

Abstract

The decision-making process regarding termination of pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease is a stressful experience for future parents. Janis and Mann’s conflict decision-making model describes seven ideal stages that comprise vigilant information-gathering as an expression of the qualitative decision-making process. In our study, we attempted to determine whether parents who face the decision regarding termination of pregnancy undertake a qualitative decision-making process. Data were collected over 2-year period using structural questionnaires. The sample consisted of two hundred forty participants; sixty-nine (28.75%) declared that their decision was to terminate the pregnancy. A significant difference in the quality of the decision-making score was noted between parents who decided to continue with the pregnancy vs. parents who opted for termination (mean score of 10.15 (5.6) vs. 18.51 (3.9), respectively, p < 0.001). Sixty-two (90%) participants within the termination of pregnancy group went through all seven stages of vigilant decision-making process and utilized additional sources for information and consultation. Parents who decided to continue with the pregnancy made swift decisions, often without considering the negative and positive outcomes; this decision-making pattern is considered non-vigilant and ineffective. Identification of future parents at risk of going through an ineffective decision-making process may help health professionals to determine the best way to provide them with information and support.

Suggested Citation

  • Yulia Gendler & Einat Birk & Nili Tabak & Silvia Koton, 2022. "Vigilance in the Decision-Making Process Regarding Termination of Pregnancy Following Prenatal Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Disease—Application of the ‘Conflict Decision-Making Model’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9137-:d:872398
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9137/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9137/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
    2. Swigar, M.E. & Quinlan, D.M. & Wexler, S.D., 1977. "Abortion applicants: characteristics distinguishing dropouts remaining pregnant and those having abortion," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 67(2), pages 142-146.
    3. Cheryl Rabin & Nili Tabak, 2006. "Healthy participants in phase I clinical trials: the quality of their decision to take part," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(8), pages 971-979, August.
    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. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P, 2001. "On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 281-298, November.
    2. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    3. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    4. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    5. Wang, Wei & Xu, Huifu & Ma, Tiejun, 2023. "Optimal scenario-dependent multivariate shortfall risk measure and its application in risk capital allocation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 322-347.
    6. Rania HENTATI & Jean-Luc PRIGENT, 2010. "Structured Portfolio Analysis under SharpeOmega Ratio," EcoMod2010 259600073, EcoMod.
    7. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Silva, Andres, 2006. "The Effect of Risk Presentation on Product Valuation: An Experimental Analysis," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21429, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Anke Gerber & Kirsten I. M. Rohde, 2018. "Weighted temporal utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(1), pages 187-212, July.
    9. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. John Quiggin, 2022. "Production under uncertainty and choice under uncertainty in the emergence of generalized expected utility theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 717-729, April.
    11. Lenk, Peter & Wedel, Michel, 2001. "Bayesian econometrics:: A reaction to Geweke," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 79-80, January.
    12. Michèle Cohen, 2008. "Risk Perception, Risk Attitude and Decision : a Rank-Dependent Approach," Post-Print halshs-00348810, HAL.
    13. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    14. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    15. Victor Gonzalez-Jimenez & Patricio S. Dalton & Charles N. Noussair, 2019. "The Dark Side of Monetary Bonuses: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Vienna Economics Papers vie1909, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    16. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    17. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    18. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    20. Emmanuel Kemel & Corina Paraschiv, 2018. "Deciding about human lives: an experimental measure of risk attitudes under prospect theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 163-192, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9137-:d:872398. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.