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 02.

Page not found

You are here

Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, is the featured guest editor for a special supplement to Medical Decision Making's September/October 2010 issue, highlighting the DECISIONS study, a nationwide survey of adults in the US regarding common medical decisions.  Lead author on the main paper of the supplement, Zikmund-Fisher and co-authors (including CBSSM faculty Angela Fagerlin, PhD and Mick Couper, PhD) describe the DECISIONS study, a telephone interview of a nationally representative sample of 3010 adults age 40 and over faced with making a medical decision in the past two years.  Researchers defined medical decisions as the patient having initiated medications, been screened, or had surgery within the past 2 years or having discussed these actions with a health care provider during the same interval.  Key findings from the study:

Although patients frequently receive information about the benefits of a procedure or medication, they don't always learn about the disadvantages.

Healthcare providers don't always ask patients what they want to do.

Most patients don't use the Internet to help them make common medical decisions; healthcare professionals remain the most important source of information.

Patients often don't know as much as they think they do.  Many patients feel well informed even when they don't know key facts that would help them make a better decision.

African-Americans and Hispanics were less knowledgeable than other patients about medications to treat high cholesterol.  In addition, they were more likely to say their doctor made decisions about cholesterol medications for them.

Most patients think they are more likely to get cancer than they really are, and tend to view cancer screenings as more accurate than they are.

Men and women think about cancer risks differently.  Women are more active participants in cancer screening decisions regardless of their perception of risk, whereas men tended to get involved only if they felt at higher risk.

Funded by National Institutes of Health

Funding Years: 2015-2020

Every day in hospitals across the country, patients with severe stroke and their families are faced with decisions about life-sustaining treatments in the initial hours of admission. These decisions about resuscitation status, invasive treatments, or possible transitions to comfort care are typically made by a surrogate decision- maker due to communication or cognitive deficits in the patient. This surrogate must consider the patient's life goals and values to determine if their loved one would choose on-going intensive treatments where they may survive and yet have long term disabilities, or prioritize comfort and accept the likelihood of an earlier death. Serving as a surrogate decision maker for a patient in the intensive care unit can have long lasting negative consequences. However, almost nothing is known about surrogate decision makers in diverse populations with stroke. Hispanic Americans are now the largest minority group in the US, rapidly growing and aging, with Mexican Americans comprising the largest subgroup. Multiple disparities have been identified in stroke incidence and outcome between Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic Whites, particularly in the use of life- sustaining treatments. Minority populations may be particularly vulnerable to inadequate communication about end-of-life issues due to socioeconomic disadvantage, poor health literacy, and lack of provider empathy and health system strategies to improve communication. However, Mexican American culture includes strong values of family support and religiosity that may have a positive influence on discussions about life-sustaining treatment and adapting to stroke-related disabilities. There is currently a critical gap in understanding the perspectives and outcomes of stroke surrogate decision makers, making it impossible to design interventions to help diverse populations of patients and families through this incredibly trying time.

PI(s): Lewis Morgenstern, Darin Zahuranec

Co-I(s): Lynda Lisabeth, Brisa Sanchez

The novelty of risk and vaccination intentions (May-12)

It's 2009.  Early in the year, a 9-year-old girl from California became the first person with a confirmed case of H1N1 ("swine") influenza in the United States.  Shortly thereafter, the U.S. declared a public health emergency and the World Health Organization declared a phase 6 pandemic (the highest level possible).  By September 2009 a vaccination was developed and was available within a month.

You've been following the news about the H1N1 influenza as developments have unfolded throughout the year, and you feel some concern.  You have been wondering about the risk of coming down with the H1N1 flu yourself and have been thinking about whether you should be vaccinated. 

MD vs. WebMD: The Internet in Medical Decisions (Dec-10)

With just a simple search term and a click of the mouse, a person can find a large amount of health information on the Internet. What role does the Internet play in how patients make medical decisions? Does using the Internet as a source for information to help patients make informed decisions vary by health condition? Does the Internet substitute for detailed discussions with a health care provider?

Consider the following:

Imagine that you recently visited your health care provider for an annual physical examination. During the exam your doctor told you that you are at the age where you should start thinking about getting a screening test for colon cancer. In this conversation your health care provider explained some of the reasons why you should get screened. At the end of the visit, you had more information about screening tests for colon cancer but had not yet decided whether or not you wanted to get tested.

As you think about how you would make a decision about whether or not to get screened for colon cancer:
 
How important is your health care provider as a source of information about screening tests for colon cancer?
Not at all important (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Extremely important
 
Would you use, or have someone else use for you, the Internet to find information on screening tests for colon cancer?
 
  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't know
How important is the Internet as a source of information screening tests for colon cancer?
Not at all important (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Extremely important
 
 
 

How do your answers compare?

In a recent study published in the journal Medical Decision Making, CBSSM investigators Brian Zikmund-FisherMick Couper, and Angela Fagerlin examined Internet use and perceived importance of different sources of information by patients making specific medical decisions.

In this study, US adults aged 40 years and older were asked about how they got information about 9 common medical decisions, including decisions about common prescription medication (for high blood pressure, cholesterol, and depression), cancer-screening tests (for colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer), and elective surgeries (for lower back pain, cataracts, and knee/hip replacement). In addition, they study compared participants' ratings of the Internet as a source of information with their ratings of other sources, such as their health care provider.

So, how did your responses compare to the average adult in this study's population?

Results from this study showed that most patients did not use the Internet to make specific medical decisions like the ones you considered. On average, about 26% of participants made use of the Internet for information to make decisions about colon cancer screening tests and about 47% used it to inform a decision about lower back pain surgery.

Among participants who chose to use the Internet for finding information about specific medical decisions, data show that Internet use varies significantly across different types of medical decisions. Internet users were more likely to use the Internet for information related to elective surgery (36%), such as lower back pain surgery, and prescription medication (32%) than for cancer-screening decisions (22%), such as colon cancer screening.

Another element of this study looked at participants' ratings of different information sources. You are unlike other participants in this study in that you did not consistently rate health care providers as the most important source for information about colon cancer screening and lower back pain surgery. The CBSSM study found that, for both Internet users and nonusers, health care providers were rated highest as a source for information for all 9 decisions studied. Among Internet users, however, the Internet was rated as their 2nd-most important source of information.

The researchers found that Internet use to inform specific medical decisions varied by age ranging from 38% for those aged 40 to 49 years to 14% for those aged 70 years or older. Approximately 33% of 50 to 59 year olds used the Internet to make these medical decisions and 24% for those in the 60 to 69 year age category. This result is consistent with previous research on the demographics of Internet use.

The study authors concluded that the Internet has an impact on people's access to health care information; however, "the data suggest that access is not the same as use, and use for one medical decision does not imply use for all health decisions." In other words, people use the Internet differently depending on the context. The authors end by stating, "Clinicians, health educators, and health policy makers need to be aware that we remain a long way away from having Internet-based information sources universally used by patients to improve and support the process of medical decision making."

For the full text of this article:

Couper M, Singer E, Levin CA, Fowler F, Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Use of the internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: Results from the DECISIONS survey. Medical Decision Making 2010;30:106S-114S.

 

Funded by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

Funding Years: 2014 - 2018

Obesity is increasingly considered among the most important public health problems of our times. Bariatric surgery is arguably the only treatment that has proven effective in producing long-term weight loss for patients with morbid obesity. Bariatric surgery also results in resolution of obesity related comorbid conditions, improvements in quality of life, and increased survival.

There are currently four different bariatric surgical procedures in use: adjustable gastric banding, gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and duodenal switch. Bariatric surgery is considered a highly preference sensitive medical issue. Existing decision aids in bariatric surgery are limited in that they provide information about the average comparative risks and benefits of the treatment options, but do not provide customized estimates of the risks and benefits of the different procedures for individual patients. As a result of these draw-backs, decision aids are not frequently used in making treatment decisions in bariatric surgery.

Our proposal is highly innovative in that our decision support tool integrates data from a large clinical registry with individual patient data to provide patients with real-time, customized, accurate information regarding the risks and benefits of the treatment options to better inform decision making. This tool will be continuously updated to ensure that the data on risks and benefits that it provides are accurate and current. Our tool also provides information about other attributes of the treatment options that bariatric surgery patients and other relevant stakeholders feel are important for patients to consider in deciding whether and what type of bariatric surgery to have.

The proposed research promotes shared medical decision making for patients who are considering bariatric surgery for the treatment of morbid obesity. If our intervention proves effective, it will result in improved decision quality and outcomes of care for patients. It may also result in improved efficiency of care to the extent that it serves to augment or guide communication between the patient and physician to promote shared medical decision-making.

PI(s): Nancy Birkmeyer/Amir Ghaferi

Co-I(s): Lawrence An, Mousumi Banerjee, Angela Fagerlin, Sarah Hawley, Edward Norton, Lisa Prosser

Wed, June 11, 2014

Carl Schneider, JD was quoted in a recent LA Times article titled "Scale of medical decisions shifts to offer varied balances of power" He discussed the role of doctors and patients in the process of medical decision making, "People want to know what's going on, but that doesn't necessarily mean they want to make the decision."

Research Topics: 

Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH.

Funding Years: 2010-2014

The overarching goal of this proposal is to improve decision making about organ quality in Liver Transplantation, specifically by increasing transparency, improving patient knowledge and satisfaction, and maintaining patient and public trust in the transplant system. In addition, this research may improve patient outcomes by ensuring that high risk organs go to patients who are most likely to benefit from them. For more information, visit NIH Reporter.

PI(s): Michael Volk

 

Funded by : University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Funding Years: 2015-2016

 

PI: Sarah Hawley, PhD, MPH

Funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Funding Years: 2011-2016. 

While substantial progress has occurred recognizing community expertise in Research, and involving Communities in Decisions about Research aims and methods, community influence on Research Funding priorities remains limited. Building on experience with developing, Testing and using the successful CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) tool, we plan to modify an existing priority setting simulation exercise to develop a tool to engage minority and underserved Communities in setting priorities for clinical and translational Research, evaluate it from the perspective of those who participate, and examine the extent to which it actually influences Research priorities. This tool could be valuable to Research Funding organizations, community-academic partnerships, community organizations asked to participate in Research, and others aiming to engage Communities in Research. For more information, visit NIH Reporter

PI(s): Susan Goold

Co-I(s): Kathryn Moseley 

 

Pages