IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v76y2014i4p451-467.html

Helping patients and physicians reach individualized medical decisions: theory and application to prenatal diagnostic testing

Author

Listed:
  • Edi Karni

  • Moshe Leshno
  • Sivan Rapaport

Abstract

This paper presents a procedure designed to aid physicians and patients in the process of making medical decisions, and illustrates its implementation to aid pregnant women, who decided to undergo prenatal diagnostic test choose a physician to administer it. The procedure is based on a medical decision-making model of Karni (J Risk Uncertain 39: 1–16, 2009 ). This model accommodates the possibility that the decision maker’s risk attitudes may vary with her state of health and incorporates other costs, such as pain and inconvenience, associated with alternative treatments. The medical decision problem was chosen for its relative simplicity and the transparency it affords. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Edi Karni & Moshe Leshno & Sivan Rapaport, 2014. "Helping patients and physicians reach individualized medical decisions: theory and application to prenatal diagnostic testing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 451-467, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:76:y:2014:i:4:p:451-467
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-013-9379-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-013-9379-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-013-9379-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Wendy L. Nelson & Michael Pignone & Glyn Elwyn & David R. Rovner & Annette M. O'Connor & Angela Coulter & Rosaly Correa-de-Araujo, 2007. "Are Patient Decision Aids the Best Way to Improve Clinical Decision Making? Report of the IPDAS Symposium," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 599-608, September.
    2. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    3. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Barrios, Carolina & Wakker, Peter P., 2007. "Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 356-378, May.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    5. Edi Karni, 2009. "A theory of medical decision making under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Heidemarie Kremer & Gail Ironson & Neil Schneiderman & Martin Hautzinger, 2007. "``It's My Body'': Does Patient Involvement in Decision Making Reduce Decisional Conflict?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 522-532, September.
    7. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    8. Pamela L. Hudak & Richard M. Frankel & Clarence Braddock III & Rosane Nisenbaum & Paola Luca & Caitlin McKeever & Wendy Levinson, 2008. "Do Patients' Communication Behaviors Provide Insight into Their Preferences for Participation in Decision Making?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 385-393, May.
    9. Atanu Saha, 1993. "Expo-Power Utility: A ‘Flexible’ Form for Absolute and Relative Risk Aversion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(4), pages 905-913.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gajdos, Thibault & Garrouste, Clémentine & Geoffard, Pierre-Yves, 2016. "The subjective value of a life with Down syndrome: Evidence from amniocentesis decision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 59-69.

    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. Konstantinos Georgalos & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes: new model insights and heterogeneity of preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 145-192, March.
    2. José-Luis Pinto-Prades & Han Bleichrodt, 2015. "The Validity of QALYs Under Non-Expected Utility," Working Papers 113, Barcelona School of Economics.
    3. Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2016. "Ellsberg Re-revisited: An Experiment Disentangling Model Uncertainty and Risk Aversion," Working Papers 2016.37, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Mulligan, Karen & Baid, Drishti & Doctor, Jason N. & Phelps, Charles E. & Lakdawalla, Darius N., 2024. "Risk preferences over health: Empirical estimates and implications for medical decision-making," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Berger, Loïc & Bosetti, Valentina, 2020. "Characterizing ambiguity attitudes using model uncertainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 621-637.
    6. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    7. Masako Ikefuji & Roger Laeven & Jan Magnus & Chris Muris, 2013. "Pareto utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 43-57, July.
    8. Yao Thibaut Kpegli, 2023. "Smoothing Spline Method for Measuring Prospect Theory Components," Working Papers 2303, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Etienne (GATE Lyon St-Etienne), Université de Lyon.
    9. Peel, D.A. & Zhang, Jie, 2012. "On the potential for observational equivalence in experiments on risky choice when a power value function is assumed," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 8-10.
    10. Edi Karni, 2009. "A theory of medical decision making under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    12. Budych, Karolina & Helms, Thomas M. & Schultz, Carsten, 2012. "How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient–physician interaction," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 154-164.
    13. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    15. Peel, D.A., 2013. "Heterogeneous agents and the implications of the Markowitz model of utility for multi-prize lottery tickets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 264-267.
    16. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Estimating risk attitudes in conventional and artefactual lab experiments: The importance of the underlying assumptions," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 6, pages 1-15.
    17. Simon N. Whitney & Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Howard Brody & Carl Schneider & Laurence B. McCullough & Robert J. Volk & Amy L. McGuire, 2008. "Beyond Shared Decision Making: An Expanded Typology of Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 699-705, September.
    18. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    19. Wu, Steven Y. & Roe, Brian E., 2006. "AJAE Appendix: Tournaments, Fairness, and Risk," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 1-44, August.
    20. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:kap:theord:v:76:y:2014:i:4:p:451-467. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.