-
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2022Risk and loss aversion are phenomena with an important influence on decision-making, especially in economic contexts. At present, it remains unclear whether both are... (Review)
Review
Risk and loss aversion are phenomena with an important influence on decision-making, especially in economic contexts. At present, it remains unclear whether both are related, as well as whether they could have an emotional origin. The objective of this review, following the PRISMA statements, is to find consistencies in the genetic bases of risk and loss aversion with the aim of understanding their nature and shedding light on the above issues. A total of 23 empirical research met the inclusion criteria and were included from PubMed and ScienceDirect. All of them reported genetic measures from human samples and studied risk and loss aversion within an economic framework. The results for risk aversion, although with many limitations, attributed mainly to their heterogeneity and the lack of control in the studies, point to the implication of multiple polymorphisms related to the regulation of the serotonergic and dopaminergic pathways. In general, studies found the highest levels of risk aversion were associated with alleles that are linked to lower (higher) sensitivity or levels of dopamine (serotonin). For loss aversion, the scarcity of results prevents us from drawing clear conclusions, although the limited evidence seems to point in the same direction as for risk aversion. Therefore, it seems that risk aversion could have a stable genetical base which, in turn, is closely linked to emotions, but more research is needed to answer whether this phenomenon is related to loss aversion, as well as if the latter could also have an emotional origin. We also provide recommendations for future studies on genetics and economic behavior.
Topics: Humans; Affect; Emotions; Polymorphism, Genetic; Dopamine; Alleles; Decision Making
PubMed: 36361187
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192114307 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Nov 2023The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the delivery of health care is a promising area, and guidelines, consensus statements, and standards on AI regarding... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the delivery of health care is a promising area, and guidelines, consensus statements, and standards on AI regarding various topics have been developed.
OBJECTIVE
We performed this study to assess the quality of guidelines, consensus statements, and standards in the field of AI for medicine and to provide a foundation for recommendations about the future development of AI guidelines.
METHODS
We searched 7 electronic databases from database establishment to April 6, 2022, and screened articles involving AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards for eligibility. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) and RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) tools were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included articles.
RESULTS
This systematic review included 19 guideline articles, 14 consensus statement articles, and 3 standard articles published between 2019 and 2022. Their content involved disease screening, diagnosis, and treatment; AI intervention trial reporting; AI imaging development and collaboration; AI data application; and AI ethics governance and applications. Our quality assessment revealed that the average overall AGREE II score was 4.0 (range 2.2-5.5; 7-point Likert scale) and the mean overall reporting rate of the RIGHT tool was 49.4% (range 25.7%-77.1%).
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicated important differences in the quality of different AI guidelines, consensus statements, and standards. We made recommendations for improving their methodological and reporting quality.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022321360); https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=321360.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Consensus; Databases, Factual; Medicine; Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 37991819
DOI: 10.2196/46089 -
The Oncologist Feb 2023Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools designed to facilitate decision-making. In this systematic review, we summarized existing studies on the development and...
BACKGROUND
Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools designed to facilitate decision-making. In this systematic review, we summarized existing studies on the development and evaluation of PDAs for patients with hematologic malignancies.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched for articles in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included studies, abstracts, and clinical trial protocols available in English involving PDAs for patients age ≥18 diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy and/or their caregivers. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
Of the 5281 titles/abstracts screened, 15 were included: 1 protocol, 7 abstracts, and 7 full-texts. Six were PDA developmental studies, 6 were pilot studies, and 3 were randomized trials. PDA formats included electronic with web content, videos, and/or audio, questionnaires, bedside instruments, and a combination of various formats. Average participant age ranged from 36.0 to 62.4 years. Patients and caregivers identified efficacy, adverse effects, cost, and quality of life as important decision-making factors. PDAs were associated with increased knowledge and patient satisfaction as well as decreased decisional conflict and attitudinal barriers. Research on PDAs for adult patients with hematologic malignancies and their caregivers is limited. Among the studies, PDAs appear to support patients in shared decision-making.
CONCLUSION
While current literature examining the use of PDAs for adults with hematologic malignancies is limited, the positive impact of PDAs on shared decision-making and patient outcomes warrants additional research in this field.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Decision Support Techniques; Quality of Life; Patient Satisfaction; Decision Making, Shared; Pilot Projects
PubMed: 36342114
DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac231 -
PloS One 2020Cognitive and other biases can influence the quality of healthcare decision making. While substantial research has explored how biases can lead to diagnostic or other...
OBJECTIVES
Cognitive and other biases can influence the quality of healthcare decision making. While substantial research has explored how biases can lead to diagnostic or other errors in medicine, fewer studies have examined how they impact the decision making of other healthcare professionals. This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesise a broad range of research investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken in duplicate, using prespecified eligibility criteria designed to identify studies attempting to demonstrate the presence of bias when allied healthcare professionals make decisions. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, focussing on the type of allied health profession, type of decision, and type of bias reported within the included studies.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 149 studies. Of these, 119 studies came from the field of psychology, with substantially fewer from social work, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology, audiology and genetic counselling. Diagnostic and assessment decisions were the most common decision types, with fewer studies assessing treatment, prognostic or other clinical decisions. Studies investigated the presence of over 30 cognitive, affective and other decision making biases, including stereotyping biases, anchoring, and confirmation bias. Overall, 77% of the studies reported at least one outcome that represented the presence of a bias.
CONCLUSION
This scoping review provides an overview of studies investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases. Biases have the potential to seriously impact the quality, consistency and accuracy of decision making in allied health practice. The findings highlight a need for further research particularly in professional disciplines outside of psychology, using methods that reflect real life healthcare decision making.
Topics: Allied Health Personnel; Bias; Cognition; Databases as Topic; Decision Making; Humans
PubMed: 33079949
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240716 -
Maternal and Child Health Journal Jan 2021Although many studies have examined the relationship between women's empowerment and a wide range of health outcomes, the extent to which the different dimensions of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Although many studies have examined the relationship between women's empowerment and a wide range of health outcomes, the extent to which the different dimensions of empowerment influence children's health, and through which mechanisms and in what contexts, is limited in sub-Saharan Africa. The objective of this review is to systematically assess and examine studies that investigated the association between women's empowerment and children's health status in sub-Saharan Africa.
METHODS
A systematic review of the published literature is searched through PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases focusing on different measures of women's empowerment and children's health outcomes. Inclusion criteria in the review are studies that are published in English; full and original articles; studies measuring at least one dimension of women's empowerment and children's health outcomes; and Sub-Saharan African context. Studies included in this review are articles published between the year 2000 and 2019. Studies were excluded if the source was a letter, editorial, review, commentary, abstracts without providing full information about the study.
RESULTS
Initially 4718 citations were identified. Finally, 15 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In general, the evidence suggests that women's empowerment at the household level is positively and statistically significantly associated with better children's health outcomes in sub-Saharan African countries. The review also reveals that women's decision-making power or autonomy is the most common measure of women's empowerment employed by many studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Future related studies would benefit by incorporating additional aspects of women's empowerment and child health outcomes.
Topics: Child; Child Health; Decision Making; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Health; Power, Psychological; Women's Rights
PubMed: 33226578
DOI: 10.1007/s10995-020-03025-y -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2022Shared decision making (SDM) among the oncology population is highly important due to complex screening and treatment decisions. SDM among patients with cancer,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Shared decision making (SDM) among the oncology population is highly important due to complex screening and treatment decisions. SDM among patients with cancer, caregivers, and clinicians has gained more attention and importance, yet few articles have systematically examined SDM, specifically in the adult oncology population. This review aims to explore SDM within the oncology literature and help identify major gaps and concerns, with the goal to provide guidance in the development of clear SDM definitions and interventions.
METHODS
We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley approach along with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. A systematic search was conducted in four databases that included publications since 2016.
RESULTS
Of the 364 initial articles, eleven publications met the inclusion criteria. We included articles that were original research, cancer related, and focused on shared decision making. Most studies were limited in defining SDM and operationalizing a model of SDM. There were several concerns revealed related to SDM: (1) racial inequality, (2) quality and preference of the patient, caregiver, and clinician communication is important, and (3) the use of a decision-making aid or tool provides value to the patient experience.
CONCLUSION
Inconsistencies regarding the meaning and operationalization of SDM and inequality of the SDM process among patients from different racial/ethnic backgrounds impact the health and quality of care patients receive. Future studies should clearly and consistently define the meaning of SDM and develop decision aids that incorporate bidirectional, interactive communication between patients, caregivers, and clinicians that account for the diversity of racial, ethnic, and sociocultural backgrounds and preferences.
Topics: Adult; Humans; United States; Decision Making, Shared; Decision Making; Patient Participation; Medical Oncology; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36585510
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07556-8 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Nov 2021Cyberchondria describes the detrimental effects of health-related internet use. Current conceptualizations agree that cyberchondria is associated with anxiety-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cyberchondria describes the detrimental effects of health-related internet use. Current conceptualizations agree that cyberchondria is associated with anxiety-related pathologies and may best be conceptualized as a safety behavior; however, little is known about its exact underlying mechanisms.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to give an overview of the conceptualizations of cyberchondria and its relation to anxiety-related pathologies, quantify the strength of association to health anxiety by using meta-analyses, highlight gaps in the literature, and outline a hypothetical integrative cognitive-behavioral model of cyberchondria based on the available empirical evidence.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO electronic databases. A total of 25 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 7 studies, comprising 3069 individuals, were included for quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis revealed a strong association of cyberchondria (r=0.63) and its subfacets (r=0.24-0.66) with health anxiety.
RESULTS
The results indicate that cyberchondria is a distinct construct related to health anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, intolerance of uncertainty, and anxiety sensitivity. Further studies should distinguish between state and trait markers of anxiety-related pathologies and use experimental and naturalistic longitudinal designs to differentiate among risk factors, triggers, and consequences related to cyberchondria.
CONCLUSIONS
Health-related internet use in the context of health anxiety is best conceptualized as health-related safety behavior maintained through intermittent reinforcement. Here, we present a corresponding integrative cognitive-behavioral model.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Concept Formation; Humans; Hypochondriasis; Internet; Uncertainty
PubMed: 34792473
DOI: 10.2196/27835 -
Psycho-oncology Oct 2021Patient involvement in decision making is conditional for personalised treatment decisions. We aim to provide an up-to-date overview of patients' preferred and perceived... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Patient involvement in decision making is conditional for personalised treatment decisions. We aim to provide an up-to-date overview of patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL for articles published between January 2009 and January 2020. Search terms were 'decision making', 'patient participation', 'oncology', 'perception' and 'treatment'. Inclusion criteria were: written in English, peer-reviewed, reporting patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement, including adult cancer patients and concerning decision making for cancer treatment. The percentages of patients preferring and perceiving an active, shared or passive decision role and the (dis)concordance are presented. Quality assessment was performed with a modified version of the New-Castle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
31 studies were included. The median percentage of patients preferring an active, shared or passive role in decision making was respectively 25%, 46%, and 27%. The median percentage of patients perceiving an active, shared or passive role was respectively 27%, 39%, and 34%. The median concordance in preferred and perceived role of all studies was 70%. Disconcordance was highest for a shared role; 42%.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients' preferences for involvement in cancer treatment decision vary widely. A significant number of patients perceived a decisional role other than preferred. Improvements in patient involvement have been observed in the last decade. However, there is still room for improvement and physicians should explore patients' preferences for involvement in decision making in order to truly deliver personalised cancer care.
Topics: Adult; Decision Making; Humans; Neoplasms; Patient Participation; Patient Preference; Physician-Patient Relations
PubMed: 34146446
DOI: 10.1002/pon.5750 -
The Patient Jan 2022Regulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports...
BACKGROUND
Regulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) both explicitly recommend the consideration of patient preferences in the management of these diseases. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to quantify stakeholders' treatment preferences and estimate the trade-offs they are willing to make between outcomes such as treatment benefits and risks.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an up-to-date and critical review of DCEs published in asthma and COPD; specifically, we aim to evaluate the subject of preference studies conducted in asthma and COPD, what attributes have been included, stakeholders' preferences, and the consistency in reporting of instrument development, testing and reporting of results.
METHODS
A systematic review of published DCEs on asthma and COPD treatments was conducted using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies were included if they included a DCE conducted in a relevant population (e.g. patients with asthma or COPD or their caregivers, asthma or COPD-treating clinicians, or the general population), and reported quantitative outcomes on participants' preferences. Study characteristics were summarised descriptively, and descriptive analyses of attribute categories, consistency in reporting on key criteria, and stakeholder preferences were undertaken.
RESULTS
A total of 33 eligible studies were identified, including 28 unique DCEs. The majority (n = 20; 71%) of studies were conducted in a patient sample. Studies focused on inhaler treatments, and included attributes in five key categories: symptoms and treatment benefits (n = 23; 82%), treatment convenience (n = 19; 68%), treatment cost (n = 17; 61%), treatment risks (n = 13; 46%), and other (n = 10; 36%). Symptoms and treatment benefits were the attributes most frequently ranked as important to patients (n = 26, 72%), followed by treatment risks (n = 7, 39%). Several studies (n = 9, 32%) did not qualitatively pre-test their DCE, and a majority did not report the uncertainty in estimated outcomes (n = 18; 64%).
CONCLUSIONS
DCEs in asthma and COPD have focused on treatment benefits and convenience, with less evidence generated on participants' risk tolerance. Quality criteria and reporting standards are needed to promote study quality and ensure consistency in reporting between studies.
Topics: Asthma; Choice Behavior; Humans; Patient Preference; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34250574
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00536-w -
Health Information Management : Journal... May 2023Patient involvement in decision-making plays a prominent role in improving the quality of healthcare. Despite this, shared decision-making is not routinely implemented.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patient involvement in decision-making plays a prominent role in improving the quality of healthcare. Despite this, shared decision-making is not routinely implemented. However, electronic assessment tools that capture patients' history, symptoms, opinions and values prior to their medical appointment are used by healthcare professionals during patient consultations to facilitate shared decision-making.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of electronic assessment tools to improve the shared decision-making process.
METHOD
A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Published literature was searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to identify potentially relevant studies. Data were extracted and analysed narratively.
RESULTS
Seventeen articles, representing 4004 participants, were included in this review. The main findings were significant improvement in patient-provider communication and provider management of patient condition in the intervention group compared to the control group. In contrast, patient-provider satisfaction and time efficiency were assessed by relatively few included studies, and the effects of these outcomes were inconclusive.
CONCLUSION
This review found that communication and healthcare professional's management of a patient's condition improves because of the use of electronic questionnaires. This is encouraging because the process of shared decision-making is reliant on high-quality communication between healthcare professionals and patients.
IMPLICATIONS
We found that this intervention is especially important for people with chronic diseases, as they need to establish a long-term relationship with their healthcare provider and agree to a treatment plan that aligns with their values. More rigorous research with validated instruments is required.
Topics: Humans; Health Personnel; Patient Participation; Decision Making, Shared
PubMed: 33016126
DOI: 10.1177/1833358320954385