Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query about us interactive decision month 2017 08.

Page not found

You are here

Supporting information for: 2017 CBSSM Research Colloquium and Bishop Lecture (Norman Daniels, PhD)


"Setting priorities for Medicaid: The views of minority and underserved communities"
Presenter: Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA


Co-authors: Lisa Szymecko, JD, PhD; H. Myra Kim, ScD; Cengiz Salman, MA; A. Mark Fendrick, MD; Edith Kieffer, MPH, PhD; Marion Danis, MD, Zachary Rowe, BBA


Setting priorities for state Medicaid programs challenges policy makers. Engaging beneficiaries affected by tradeoffs could make allocations more just and more sensitive to their needs. 

Academic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT (CHoosing All Together) to engage community members in deliberations about Medicaid spending priorities.  After an informational video about Medicaid, individuals and deliberating groups choose from a menu of spending options constrained by limited resources. We randomly assigned participants from low-income communities throughout Michigan to participate in CHAT with (n=209) or without group deliberations (n=181) in English, Spanish or Arabic. Data collection included pre- and post-CHAT individual priorities and group priorities.

Low-income participants ranged from 18 to 81 years old (Mean 48.3); 61.6% were women. Over half (56.7%) self-identified as white, 30.8% African-American, 17.3% Hispanic, 9.2% Native American, and 12.1% Arab, Arab-American or Chaldean. Most (65.9%) had a chronic condition and 30.3% reported poor or fair health.

Before CHAT, most participants prioritized eligibility consistent with Medicaid expansion. They also prioritized coverage for a broad range of services. Most accepted daily copays for elective hospitalization (71.6% deliberators, 67.9% controls) and restricted access to specialists (60.2% deliberators, 57.4% controls). Deliberators were more likely than controls to increase, after deliberations, what they allocated to mental health care (between arm difference in allocation=0.22, p=.03) and eligibility (between arm difference in allocation=0.18, p=.04). Deliberating groups also prioritized eligibility; only 3 of 22 chose pre-expansion eligibility criteria, and 9 of 22 chose to expand eligibility further.

Members of underserved communities in Michigan put a high priority on Medicaid expansion and broad coverage. When given the opportunity to deliberate about priorities,  participants increased the priority given to expanded eligibility and coverage for mental health services.


"How Acceptable Is Paternalism? A Survey-Based Study of Clinician and Non-clinician Opinions on Decision Making After Life Threatening Stroke"
Presenter: Kunal Bailoor, MD Candidate


Co-authors: Chithra Perumalswami, MD, MSc; Andrew Shuman, MD; Raymond De Vries, PhD; Darin Zahuranec, MD, MS


Complex medical scenarios may benefit from a more paternalistic model of decision making. Yet, clinicians are taught to value patient autonomy, especially at the end-of-life. Little empirical data exist exploring opinions on paternalism.

Methods: A vignette-based survey exploring surrogate decision making after hemorrhagic stroke was administered to clinicians (faculty, residents, and nurses) at an academic health center, and non-clinicians recruited through a university research volunteer website. The cases involved an urgent decision about brain surgery, and a non-urgent decision about continuation of life support one week after stroke. Respondents rated the acceptability of paternalistic decision making, including clinicians not offering or making an explicit recommendation against the treatment, on a 4 point Likert scale.

Results: Of 924 eligible individuals, 818 (649 non-clinicians, 169 clinicians) completed the survey (completion rate 89%).  A minority of respondents (15.3%) found it acceptable not to offer surgery. Most believed it was acceptable to make an explicit recommendation that would likely result in death (73% for avoiding surgery, 69% for stopping the ventilator). Clinicians were more likely than non-clinicians to consider not offering surgery acceptable (30% vs 11%, p<0.0001). Clinicians were more likely to consider recommendations against surgery acceptable (82% vs 71%, p=0.003) and to consider recommendations to discontinue the ventilator acceptable (77% vs 67%, p=0.02). There were no differences between the nurse and physician acceptability ratings (p=0.92).

Conclusions: Clinicians and the lay public differ on the acceptability of paternalistic decision making. Understanding these differences are vital to improving communication between clinicians, patients, and families.


"Ethical Challenges Faced by Providers in Pediatric Death: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis"
Presenter: Stephanie Kukora, MD


Co-authors: Janice Firn, PhD, MSW; Patricia Keefer, MD; Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA
 

Background: Care providers of critically ill patients encounter ethically complex and morally distressing situations in practice. Though ethics committees guide ethical decision-making when conflicts arise in challenging cases, they rarely address routine needs of individual providers. Without ethics education, providers may lack skills necessary to resolve these conflicts or insight to recognize these dilemmas.

Objective: We sought to identify whether providers remark on ethical dilemmas/moral distress without being specifically prompted, when asked to comment on a recent in-hospital pediatric death. We also sought to characterize the nature of dilemmas or distress if found.

Methods: Providers involved in a deceased child’s care in the 24 hours prior to death were electronically surveyed. Questions included demographic information and free-text response. Free-text responses were thematically analyzed in Dedoose.

Results: There were 307 (35%) free-text responses in 879 completed surveys (33% total response rate), regarding the deaths of 138 patients (81% of in-hospital pediatric deaths) from November 2014 to May 2016. Multidisciplinary care team members from diverse hospital units were represented. 52 respondents described ethical challenges and/or moral distress. Disagreement/regret was a major theme, with subthemes of futility, suffering, and “wrong” medical choice made. Failure of shared decision-making was also a major theme, with subthemes of autonomy and best interest, false hope, denial, and misunderstanding/disagreement between the family and medical team. Some providers revealed personal ethical struggles pertaining to their role, including medication provision for pain at the end of life, struggling to be “truthful” while not divulging information inappropriate for their role, and determining when providing comfort care is ethically permissible.

Discussion/Conclusion: Providers experience ethical conflicts with pediatric end-of-life care but may be unwilling or unable to share them candidly. Education assisting staff in identifying and resolving these dilemmas may be helpful. Further support for providers to debrief safely, without criticism or repercussions, may be warranted.


"Capacity for Preferences:  An overlooked criterion for resolving ethical dilemmas with incapacitated patients"
Presenters: Jason Adam Wasserman, PhD; Mark Navin, PhD
 

Clinical bioethics traditionally recognizes a hierarchy of procedural standards for determining a patient’s best plan of care. In broad terms, priority is given first to autonomous patients themselves and then to surrogates who utilize substituted judgments to choose as they believe the patient would have chosen. In the absence of good information about what the patient would have wanted, clinical ethicists typically retreat to the “best interest” standard, which represents a relatively objective assessment designed to maximize benefits and/or minimize harms.  In this paper, we argue that “capacity for preferences” is a conceptually distinct and morally salient procedural standard for determining a patient’s best plan of care.  We build our argument on the grounds that 1) that many patients who lack decisional capacity can nevertheless reliably express preferences (an empirical claim); 2) these preferences are distinct from best interest and not reducible to best interest considerations; 3) that capacity for preferences, at a minimum, has moral valence for situations in which best interest is undetermined (and we argue this happens more frequently than commonly recognized); and, finally, 4) that capacity for preferences in incapacitated patients lacking reliable or valid surrogates might even subvert a best interest course of action in some cases.  Some precedent for our analysis can be found in the concept of pediatric assent. However, the idea that patient preferences matter morally has broad application for adult patients, including for those with advanced dementia and other mental illnesses that preclude capacity for decision-making.

Policy and Public Outreach

The Bishop Lectureship in Bioethics

Together with the Bishop endowment, CBSSM sponsors the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics.  The Bishop Lecture in Bioethics was made possible by a generous gift from the estate of Ronald and Nancy Bishop, both graduates of the University of Michigan Medical School (Class of ‘44). The Bishop lecture typically serves as the keynote address for the CBSSM Research Colloquium. The Bishop Lecture selection committee is headed by Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA. Click here for more details.

CBSSM Research Colloquium

The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) Research Colloquium features presentations focusing on bioethics and social sciences in medicine across multiple disciplines. Click here for more details.

CBSSM Seminar Series

Building upon the very successful “joint seminars” of past years sponsored by the Bioethics Program and the Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine (CBDSM), CBSSM hosts seminars on a bimonthly basis throughout the academic year, inviting investigators to present both developing and finished research topics. Click here for more details.

Sponsored Events

In addition to the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics, CBSSM has sponsored and co-sponsored a number of other events.

Bioethics Grand Rounds

With support from the UMHS Office of Clinical Affairs and C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital and Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital, CBSSM’s Program in Clinical Ethics sponsors the monthly Bioethics Grand Rounds, focusing on ethical issues arising in health care and medicine. This educational session is open to UMHS faculty and staff.

Film Screening & Moderated Discussion

CBSSM also sponsors film screenings and moderated panel discussions. In 2017, CBSSM sponsored a free film screening of "Concussion." The moderated panel included Ellen Arruda, PhD, Mechanical Engineering; Karen Kelly-Blake, PhD, Bioethics, MSU; & Matthew Lorincz, MD, PhD, Neurology. The moderator was Raymond De Vries, PhD.

In 2015, CBSSM co-sponsored a free film screening of "Still Alice." The panel included Nancy Barbas, MD and J. Scott Roberts, PHD and the moderator was Raymond De Vries, PhD. The event was co-sponsored by the Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Center.

Current Event Panels

In 2014, CBSSM co-sponsored the panel "Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing: The Drama and the Data" featuring Robert C. Green, MD, MPH, Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Genetics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, as the keynote speaker. The panel included Jeffrey W. Innis, MD, PhD, Morton S. and Henrietta K. Sellner Professor in Human Genetics and Director, Division of Pediatric Genetics, and Wendy R. Uhlmann, MS, CGC, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Human Genetics. The panel was moderated by Sharon L.R. Kardia, PhD, Director, Public Health Genetics Program and the Life Sciences and Society Program, School of Public Health, University of Michigan. This event was also co-sponsored by the Department of Human Genetics, Genetic Counseling Program and Life Sciences and Society, Department of Epidemiology.

In 2013, CBSSM sponsored the panel "What does the Supreme Court ruling on gene patents mean for public health?" The panel featured panelists, Rebecca Eisenberg, JD, Robert and Barbara Luciano Professor of Law; Sofia Merajver, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine; and Shobita Parthasarathy, PhD, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. The panel was moderated by Edward Goldman, JD, Associate Professor, UM Department of ObGyn Women's Hospital and Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Health Management and Policy.

Decision Consortium

Each year, CBSSM sponsors one Decision Consortium speaker with a focus on health-related decision making. Decision Consortium, hosted by the Department of Psychology, is a University-wide distributed center for scholarship on decision making. Each session involves a vigorous discussion of new ideas and research on problems that have significant decision making elements. CBSSM-sponsored speakers included Kevin Volpp, MD, PhD, UPenn (2015), Karen Sepucha, PhD, Harvard (2013), and Ellen Peters, PhD, OSU (2012). In 2016, CBSSM will sponsor Lisa Schwartz, MD, MS and Steven Woloshin, MD, MS from the Dartmouth Institute.

The Waggoner Lecture

In November of 2010, CBSSM co-sponsored the 15th annual Waggoner Lecture, an annual event in honor of the late Dr. Raymond Waggoner, former chair of the Department of Psychiatry.  The lecture was presented by Bernard Lo, MD,  Director of the Program in Medical Ethics at the University of California-San  Francisco, and was entitled, “Stem cells: Intractable ethical dilemmas or  emerging agreement.”

In November 2011, CBSSM co-sponsored the Waggoner Lecture breakfast.  The lecture was presented by Laura Roberts, MD, chair of the Department of  Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, and was entitled, “Becoming a Physician: Stresses and Strengths of Physicians- in-Training.”

Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race

In 2012, in conjunction with Taubman Health Sciences Library and the UM Center for the History of Medicine,  CBSSM co-sponsored the  United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s traveling exhibition, “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race.” The exhibition illustrates how Nazi leadership enlisted people in professions traditionally charged with healing and the public good, to legitimize persecution, murder and, ultimately, genocide.

MICHR Research Education Symposium

In 2013, CBSSM co-sponsored the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR) Research Education Symposium, "Life at the Interface of Genomics and Clinical Care." The symposium included a series of talks on topics with implications for translational and clinical research. The keynote speaker was Dr. Ellen Wright Clayton, JD, MD, Rosalind E. Franklin Professor of Genetics and Health Policy; Craig-Weaver Professor of Pediatrics; Professor of Law; and Director, Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Wright Clayton’s topic was “Addressing Biomedical Ethics.” 

 

A Matter of Perspective (Jul-07)

Are opinions on whether health care funding should be rationed dependent on an individual's perspective? Imagine that there are two regional health systems, each responsible for providing health care for one million people. The Director of each system has enough money to fund only one of two medical treatment programs. The health systems have the same limited budget and are the same in every way except for the treatment program that each Director decides to fund.

One Director decides to fund Program A, which will cure 100 people with moderate shortness of breath. People with this condition have shortness of breath when walking an average block with no hills.
The other Director decides to fund Program B, which will cure 100 people with severe shortness of breath. People with this condition have shortness of breath even when walking only short distances, such as from the bedroom to the bathroom.
Which Director made the better decision?
  • Director who funded Program A (moderate shortness of breath)
  • Director who funded Program B (severe shortness of breath)
  • Both choices were equally good
If you chose either the Program A Director or the Program B Director, how may how many people would have to be cured of other condition to make the two choices seem equally good to you? Reminder: Program A and Program B would both cure 100 people.
 
Next, please check your responses to these statements:
"The thought of only one group of people being able to get treatment while other people may not be able to get treatment makes me feel outraged."
  • strongly agree
  • agree
  • neutral
  • disagree
  • strongly disagree
"I believe that there are situations where health care has to be rationed because sometimes there are not enough financial resources (eg, money for health care programs)."
  • strongly agree
  • agree
  • neutral
  • disagree
  • strongly disagree

How do your answers compare?

Before we analyze your responses to the scenario, we'd like to offer some background information about this area of research.

In an environment of scarce health care resources, policy makers and leaders of health care organizations often must make difficult choices about funding treatment programs. Researchers find out how people value different health states by asking questions like the ones you've answered. This area of research is called "person tradeoff elicitation."

The problem is that many people refuse to give a comparison value, saying that both choices are equal ("equivalence refusal") or saying that millions of people would have to be cured of one condition to be equal to the other treatment choice ("off-scale refusal"). Sometimes these responses are appropriate, but many times these responses seem inappropriate. Furthermore, the frequency of these decision refusals depends on how the questions are asked.

What were the specific goals of this research study?

In an article published by Laura J. Damschroder, Todd R. Roberts, Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, and Peter A. Ubel (Medical Decision Making, May/June 2007), the authors explored whether people would be more willing to make health care tradeoffs if they were somewhat removed from the decision making role. As part of their study, the researchers asked people to comment on choices made by others, in this case, the Directors of two identical regional health systems. For this study, the researchers anticipated that asking participants to judge someone else's decision would make it easier for the participants to compare the benefit of curing two conditions that have a clear difference in severity. The researchers thought that adopting a perspective of judging someone else's decision might lessen the participants' feeling about making "tragic choices" between groups of patients and hence result in fewer refusals to choose. The researchers also hypothesized that respondents taking a non-decision-maker perspective would be more detached and would feel less outraged about the idea of having to ration medical treatments. As we will explain below, the researchers were surprised to learn that their hypotheses were wrong!

What did this research study find?

Some people surveyed in this study were asked to decide for themselves which of two treatment programs for shortness of breath should be funded. Others, like you, were asked which health system Director made the better decision about treatment programs for shortness of breath. Significantly, the respondents who had the evaluator perspective had nearly two times higher odds of giving an equivalence refusal�that is, saying that the decisions were equal. Why did this evaluator perspective fail to decrease these decision refusals? One possibility is that respondents did not feel as engaged in the decision. It's also possible that respondents felt that they were judging the Directors who made the decision rather than the decision itself. Or maybe respondents didn't want to second-guess the decisions of people they perceived as experts. The researchers predicted that people who had to make the decision about treatment themselves would be more outraged about the idea of rationing health care treatments. This prediction was also wrong! 69% of all respondents agreed that rationing is sometimes necessary, and yet 66% of all respondents also felt outraged about the idea of having to ration. The percentages were nearly the same for those deciding directly and those evaluating the decision of Directors of health care systems.

What conclusions did the researchers draw?

The researchers in this study concluded that perspective definitely matters in making hard choices about allocation of health care resources. They attempted to increase people's willingness to make tradeoffs by changing their perspective from decision maker to evaluator of someone else's decision. These attempts backfired. Contrary to the researchers' predictions, people were dramatically more likely to give equivalence refusals when they were assigned to a non-decision-maker perspective. The researchers also concluded that the degree of emotion aroused by health care rationing also plays a role in people's willingness to make tradeoffs.

So, how does your response to the Directors' decision in the shortness-of-breath scenario compare with the responses of the people surveyed for this study?

If you responded that the choices of both Directors were equal, you were not alone! Overall, with this scenario and related ones, 32% of respondents in the published study refused to make the tradeoff. These were the equivalence refusals. In comparison, 21% of respondents in the study who were asked to decide themselves between two patient groups gave an equivalence refusal.

If you made a choice of Directors in the shortness-of-breath scenario, how does your numerical answer compare with the responses of people surveyed for this study?

In the study, 15% of respondents gave a number of one million or more as the point at which the Directors' decisions about the two treatment programs would be equal. These were the off-scale refusals. In comparison, 19% of respondents in the study who were asked to decide themselves about the two programs gave an off-scale refusal.

What about your level of outrage?

In the study, 69% of respondents agreed that rationing of health care treatment is sometimes necessary, but 66% also felt outraged about the idea of having to ration. These attitudes were the same whether the respondents were assigned an evaluator perspective (as you were) or a direct decision maker perspective.

Read the article:

Why people refuse to make tradeoffs in person tradeoff elicitations: A matter of perspective?
Damschroder LJ, Roberts TR, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Medical Decision Making 2007;27:266-288.

 

Funded by National Institutes of Health; Nationatal Institute on Aging

Funding Years: 2012-2017

A cornerstone of the nation’s social science research infrastructure, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S. families. Begun in 1968, 36 waves of data have now been collected on PSID families and their descendents. Its long-term measures of economic and social well-being have spurred researchers and policy makers to attend to the fundamental dynamism inherent in social and behavioral processes. This project collects, processes, and disseminates three modules in the 2013 and 2015 waves of the PSID:
1.Health module: Including 15 minutes of survey questions on health status, health behaviors, health insurance coverage & health care costs. Linkages to the National Death Index and Medicare will be extended;
2.Wealth module: Including 10 minutes of survey questions on wealth, active savings, and pensions. Linkage to Social Security earnings and benefits records for active sample and decedents will be undertaken for the first time, and a new module to minimize errors in reports of wealth changes will be developed and implemented; and
3.Well-being module with related psychosocial measures: A mixed-mode (web/mail out) questionnaire to collect content from both respondents and spouses about their well-being and related psychosocial measures (e.g., personality, intelligence), with an experiment to identify (and allow researchers to adjust for if necessary) mode effects.

PI(s): Robert Schoeni

Co-I(s): Mick Couper, Vicki Freedman, Katherine McGonagle

Sarah Hawley's perspective piece, "Half of women with early-stage breast cancer consider prophylactic double mastectomy" was recently published in Healio ITJ (in the journals).

Full article can be found here.

Fri, October 04, 2013

The US News & World Report quoted Sarah Hawley and cited her research in a story about the tendency of young women with breast cancer to overestimate their risk of getting cancer in the opposite, healthy breast. 

An excerpt from the article, "Unfounded Fear Prompts Some Preventive Mastectomies: Study":

The findings echo some previous research, according to Sarah Hawley, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Health System, in Ann Arbor. In her study, presented last year at a medical meeting, Hawley found that nearly 70 percent of women choosing the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy actually had a low risk of developing cancer in the healthy breast.

"Their findings are consistent with ours, in that desire to prevent cancer in the non-affected breast is a big reason patients reported for getting [contralateral prophylactic mastectomy]," Hawley said.

Better communication is needed to be sure women know the risks and benefits, and lack of benefit of getting the preventive surgery, Hawley pointed out. Better strategies to help patients manage anxiety and worry would help, too, she added.

 

Research Topics: 

Funded by National Science Foundation.

Funding Years: 2015-2017.


When thinking about infectious diseases and making decisions about how to protect themselves, people often overreact to infectious diseases with low risk of infection, such as Ebola, and at other times fail to respond to infectious diseases with higher risk of infection, such as the flu. Both types of responses can lead to negative outcomes such as stress and anxiety, less productivity at work, and inefficient use of healthcare resources (either using too much or too little depending on the disease). We think that one reason that people may exhibit these responses to infectious diseases is that there may be a conflict between their beliefs about their risk and their feelings about their risk. This research will examine areas of misinformation and emotional responses to three infectious diseases: Ebola, the flu, and MERS. After identifying key areas of misinformation and excessive or subdued emotional responses to these three diseases, the research team develops and tests a number of communication strategies that best correct misinformation and resolve conflicts between beliefs and feelings of risk to motivate more appropriate responses to infectious diseases. After determining which strategies are better at doing those things than others, the research team creates a website to display "best-practices" in communicating about infectious diseases.

This research involves conducting a number of web studies to investigate when and for whom cognitive- and affective-based communication strategies work best at modifying cognitions, affect, and behavioral intentions towards pandemic risks. The research uses the theory of "risk-as-feelings". These studies will advance our understanding of risk-as-feelings in a number of ways. First, the research team examines the frequency of simultaneous contradictory responses (SCRs) - when beliefs and feelings of risk conflict - at least with these three infectious diseases. Second, the research team tests for the existence of simultaneous contradictory affective responses. Third, the team then assesses the relative influence of cognitive and affective sources of information on cognitions, affective reactions, and behavioral intentions, as well as in the possible resolution of SCRs. Fourth, the application of risk-as-feelings to determine optimal communication strategies about these infectious diseases should serve as a test-case for the utility of incorporating risk-as-feelings into public health theories of health behavior and communication. Fifth, due to its foundation in the theory of risk-as-feelings, insights gleaned from the current studies should help shape the way information is communicated about other public health issues beyond these disease. And finally, the research tests whether resolving SCRs is key to inducing appropriate responses to pandemic risks or whether improving knowledge, acknowledging fears, and/or improving feelings of efficacy, is sufficient to improve responses, as would be predicted by standard health behavior theories from public health.

PI(s): Brian Zikmund-Fisher

Angela Fagerlin, PhD

Alumni

Dr. Fagerlin served as Co-Director of CBSSM from 2010-2015. She is currently Chair of the Department of Population Health Sciences at University of Utah School of Medicine and Research Scientist, Salt Lake City VA Center for Informatics Decision Enhancement and Surveillance (IDEAS)

Last Name: 
Fagerlin
Research Projects: 

Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, gave a presentation at the Methods of Analysis Program in the Social Sciences at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, on April 8, 2011.

Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, a CBSSM investigator and Director of the CBSSM Internet Survey lab, is the principal investigator on an Investigator Initiated Research award from the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making that began in October 2008.  The grant, entitled "Learning by Doing: Improving Risk Communication Through Active Processing of Interactive Pictographs," will fund the development and testing of of Flash-based interactive risk graphics that research participants or patients can use to visually demonstrate how likely they believe some event is to occur. Dr. Zikmund-Fisher hopes that people who create risk graphics themselves will have a better intuitive understanding of risk than people who just view static images. Co-investigators on the award include Angela Fagerlin, Peter A. Ubel, and Amanda Dillard.

Pages