Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity

Wendy L. Nelson, Paul K. J. Han, Angela Fagerlin, Michael Stefanek and Peter A. Ubel
Additional contact information
Wendy L. Nelson: Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, nelsonw@mail.nih.gov
Paul K. J. Han: Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Angela Fagerlin: VA Health Services Research & Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Michael Stefanek: Behavioral Research Center, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia
Peter A. Ubel: VA Health Services Research & Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Medical Decision Making, 2007, vol. 27, issue 5, 609-618

Abstract: Health decision aids are a potentially valuable adjunct to patient-physician communication and decision making. Although the overarching goal of decision aids— to help patients make informed, preference-sensitive choices—is widely accepted, experts do not agree on the means to achieve this end. In this article, the authors critically examine the theoretical basis and appropriateness of 2 widely accepted criteria used to evaluate decision aids: values clarification and reduction of decisional conflict. First, they argue that although clarifying values is central to decision making under uncertainty, it is not clear that decision aids—as they have been conceived and operationalized so far—can and should be used to achieve this goal. The pursuit of clarifying values, particularly values clarification exercises, raises a number of ethical, methodological, and conceptual issues, and the authors suggest research questions that should be addressed before values clarification is routinely endorsed. Second, the authors argue that the goal of reducing decisional conflict is conceptually untenable and propose that it be eliminated as an objective of decision aids.

Keywords: Key words: decision aids; decision making; decisional conflict; values clarification. (Med Decis Making 2007; 27:609—618) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07306780 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:609-618

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07306780

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().