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)
Page not found
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.
Between February 3 and April 13, 2012, in collaboration with the Taubman Health Sciences Library and the Center for the History of Medicine, CBSSM is co-sponsoring an exhibit entitled "Deadly medicine: Creating the Master Race" on the 4th floor of the Taubman library. This traveling exhibit is a spin-off of the larger exhibit that debuted at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. For more information about the exhibit, click 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
Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, is Professor, Deputy Chair, and Residency Program Director in the Department of Radiation Oncology and Director of the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine at the University of Michigan.
She graduated first in her class from Harvard College and then pursued her medical training at Harvard Medical School. She also served as a fellow in the Center for Ethics at Harvard University and completed her doctorate in Social Policy at Oxford University as a Marshall Scholar.
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.
PI(s): Geoffrey Barnes, James Froehlich
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.