Making choices without deliberating.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Choice Behavior↗
Biomedical subjects
Hilary L Bekker
Publications and source records attributed to Hilary L Bekker.
Applying decision analysis to facilitate informed decision making about prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate decision analysis as a technique to facilitate women's decision-making about prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome using measures of effective decision-making. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial in a UK hospital's prenatal diagnosis clinic. INTERVENTION: Routine versus routine consultation structured by decision analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 117/132 women receiving a screen-positive maternal serum screening result participated (58 routine, 59 decision analysis). METHODS: Consultations were audio tape-recorded, transcribed and coded; questionnaires were completed after the consultation and one month later after receipt of a diagnostic test and/or the 19-week scan result. MAIN MEASURES: Test decision, subjective expected utilities, knowledge, informed decision-making, risk perception, decisional conflict, anxiety, perceived usefulness and directiveness of consultation information. RESULTS: 48/59 in the decision-aided group and 47/58 in the routine group underwent prenatal diagnosis. Informed decision-making was higher, perceived risk more realistic and decisional conflict over time lower in the decision analysis group. Decision analysis had no impact on knowledge or SEU scores, and was no more or no less directive, useful or anxiety provoking than the routine care. Consultations were six minutes longer. CONCLUSIONS: Decision analysis consultations enable women to make more informed prenatal diagnosis decisions. Professionals will need training to use this technique effectively.
Anxiety↗
Follow-up care of patients treated for breast cancer: a structured review.
Breast cancer follow-up services vary, with little evidence to support which practice is best. A systematic review methodology was employed to identify and integrate primary research on the effectiveness of follow-up services. From 4418 articles identified by searches, 38 were eligible for review inclusion. Data were not sufficiently homogenous to integrate statistically, however the following patterns of findings were observed: patient survival and quality of life were not affected by intensity of follow-up or location of care; patients held positive attitudes towards follow-up but psychological distress was consistently high regardless of location of services; few studies assessed patient involvement in treatment choices; studies' research quality was poor with inadequate measures of effectiveness or research designs. There is insufficient primary empirical evidence to draw broad conclusions regarding best practice for breast cancer follow-up care in terms of (a) patient involvement in care, (b) reductions in morbidity, and (c) cost effectiveness of service provision.
Adult↗
Is anxiety a suitable measure of decision aid effectiveness: a systematic review?
Several trials have employed anxiety measures to assess decision aid effectiveness. This study employed a systematic review method to integrate their findings. The affective impact of decision aids and the appropriateness of anxiety as a measure of decision aid effectiveness are explored. From 11,361 citations generated from searching electronic databases and journals, 26 randomised controlled trials evaluated patient decision aids; 10 included anxiety measures (HADS; STAI). The data were too heterogeneous to integrate statistically. No studies showed an increase in anxiety from exposure to decision aids versus usual care. Some patterns emerged between level of anxiety and characteristics of the decision. As raised levels of anxiety are associated with both more effective decision strategies and stressful health interventions, anxiety is an inappropriate measure to employ when evaluating decision aids. Future research needs to investigate the relationship between affect, cognition and decision aids in order to facilitate effective patient decision making.
Adolescent↗
Understanding why decision aids work: linking process with outcome.
Decision aids help patients make treatment choices. There is little empirical evidence to explain how they work. The results from this randomised controlled trial comparing routine with decision-aided consultations in the prenatal diagnosis for Down's syndrome context are used to describe the strategies employed during decision making, to assess the impact of a decision aid on decision processes, and to investigate decision process and outcome associations. Data were elicited from two content analyses of consultation transcripts and questionnaires assessing knowledge, anxiety, decisional conflict, reasons, and information usefulness. 68/106 women completed measures at consultation and follow-up. Decision-aided women employed more cognitive and emotional strategies during decision making. More negative evaluations during decision making were associated with better outcomes. Decision-aided consultations facilitated the employment of strategies associated with more effective choices. These consultations take longer and elicit greater expressions of negative affect, so may be less rewarding encounters for health professionals.
Adult↗
Choices about abortion method: assessing the quality of patient information leaflets in England and Wales.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of patient leaflets regarding the choice between medical and surgical abortions. DESIGN: Cross sectional survey. SETTING: NHS and private providers of abortion services in England and Wales. SAMPLE: Leaflets from three private providers, all teaching hospitals (n = 14) and a representative sample of NHS district hospitals (n = 27), accessed by approximately 100,000 women per year. METHODS: On telephoning the above abortion services, the leaflets provided to women choosing to have medical or surgical abortions were requested. Content analysis of leaflets included: application of a coding frame assessing adequacy of information about options, risks and procedures; the Flesch Readability Ease scale. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provision of leaflet, adequacy of information and ease of readability. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent (44/60) of contacted providers offered women a leaflet. Of these 44 leaflets, one mentioned medical and 15 surgical abortion methods only. Adequacy of information provision was low, with on average 10/23 points covered about the surgical method, 12/21 points about the medical method and 7/11 points about aftercare. Readability scores were poor with 24/44 (55%) rated as 'difficult' or 'fairly difficult'. Among NHS providers, scores were slightly higher in the teaching than in the district hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: On average, leaflets provided half the information possible about the risks and procedures of medical and surgical methods. In addition, readability was rated as difficult in over half the leaflets. It seems unlikely that these leaflets enable women to make informed choices between abortion methods and, therefore, do not meet the requirements of current guidelines.
Abortion, Induced↗
'Heads you win, tails I lose': a critical incident study of GPs' decisions about emergency admission referrals.
BACKGROUND: Acute hospital Trusts' inability to cope with the numbers of emergency admissions has led to the production of guidelines by the Department of Health aimed at reducing inappropriate admissions by GPs. There is a paucity of research describing GPs' decisions to (not) admit patients and it is unclear how effective these guidelines are in changing these practices. OBJECTIVE: To describe GPs' decision-making about referrals for emergency hospital admissions. METHODS: Observational design using the critical incident technique to elicit data. Eight GPs in West Yorkshire recorded details of memorable emergency admission decisions, both prospective and retrospective consultations. The transcript data were classified by theme using NUD*IST. RESULTS: Forty prospective and 8 retrospective consultations were analysed. Factors affecting GPs' decisions were:Identification of all consequences for all stakeholders in the decision. Emotional impact on the GP of managing these conflicting needs. 'Peer review' of the GP's professionalism about the decision. Contextual pressures limiting effectiveness of GPs' decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Referral decisions require the evaluation of several conflicting consequences for many stakeholders in time-pressured and peer-reviewed situations. These factors encourage the use of heuristics, i.e. GPs' judgements will be influenced more by the social context of the choice than information about the patient's condition. Emergency referral guidelines provide more information to evaluate from another stakeholder; introducing guidelines is likely to increase GPs' use of heuristics and the making of less optimal decisions.
Decision Making↗