Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events press coverage 2017 10 31.

Page not found

You are here

CBSSM Seminar: Roi Livne, PhD

Wed, November 08, 2017, 3:00pm
Location: 
NCRC, Building 16, Room 266C

Roi Livne, PhD
Assistant Professor, Sociology

Title: “The New Economy of Dying: Palliative Care, Morality, and Finance in the Age of Excess”

Abstract: This talk argues that over the past 40 years, a new economy has emerged around end-of-life care: one seeking to control, cap, and limit both spending and treatment near the end of life. Built around the expertise of Hospice and Palliative Care, this economy draws on the moral conviction that near the end of life, less treatment (and consequently, less spending) is better. Based on a historical analysis and ethnographic fieldwork in three California hospitals, Livne examines the interactive work that palliative care clinicians do with severely ill patients and their families, trying to facilitate their voluntary consent to pursue less life-sustaining and life-prolonging treatments.

 

Joseph Colbert, BA

Research Associate

Joseph joined CBSSM as a Research Area Specialist in November 2017. As a project manager, he coordinates the daily operations of Dr. Jeffrey Kullgren’s project “Provider, Patient, and Health System Effects of Provider Commitments to Choose Wisely,” a grant funded research project using novel approaches to reduce the overuse of low-value services in healthcare.

Last Name: 
Colbert

Give me colostomy or give me death! (Aug-06)

Click to decide between death and living with a colostomy. Which would you choose? Are you sure?

Given the choice, would you choose immediate death,or living with a colostomy (where part of your bowel is removed and you have bowel movements into a plastic pouch attached to your belly)?

  •  Immediate Death
  •  Colostomy

Think about what it would be like if you were diagnosed with colon cancer. You are given the option of choosing between two surgical treatments.The first is a surgery that could result in serious complications and the second has no chance of complications but has a higher mortality rate.

Possible outcome Surgery 1
(complicated)
Surgery 2 
(uncomplicated)
Cure without complication 80% 80%
Cure with colostomy 1%  
Cure with chronic diarrhea 1%  
Cure with intermittent bowel obstruction 1%  
Cure with wound infection 1%  
No cure (death) 16% 20%

If you had the type of colon cancer described above, which surgery do you think you would choose?

  • Surgery 1
  • Surgery 2

How do your answers compare?

In fact, past research has shown that 51% people choose the surgery with a higher death rate, even though most of them initially preferred each of the four surgical complications, including colostomy, over immediate death.

Are you saying what you really mean?

CBDSM investigators Brian Zikmund-Fisher, Angela Fagerlin, Peter Ubel, teamed up with Jennifer Amsterlaw, to see if they could reduce the number of people choosing the surgery with the higher rate of death and therefore reducing the discrepancy. A large body of past research has shown that people are notoriously averse to uncertainty. The investigators had a hunch that uncertainty could account for some of the discrepancy. Surgery 1 has a greater number of ambiguous outcomes, perhaps causing people to be averse to it. In an effort to minimize this uncertainty, the investigators laid out a series of scenarios outlining different circumstances and presentations of the two surgeries. For example the research presented some of the participants with a reframing of the surgery information, such as:

Possible outcome Surgery 1
(complicated)
Surgery 2 
(uncomplicated)
Cured without complication 80% 80%
Cured, but with one of the following complications: colostomy, chronic diarrhea, intermittent bowl obstruction, or wound infection 4%  
No cure (death) 16% 20%

The investigators believed by grouping all of the complications together that people would be more apt to chose the surgery with the lower mortality rate, because seeing a single group of undesirable outcomes, versus a list, may decrease some of the ambiguity from previous research.

Although none of the manipulations significantly reduced the percentage of participants selecting Surgery 2, the versions that yielded the lowest preference for this surgery all grouped the risk of the four possible complications into a single category, as in the example shown above.

Why these findings are important

Over the past several decades there has been a push to give patients more information so they can make decisions that are consistent with their personal preferences. On the other hand there is a growing psychological literature revealing people's tendency to make choices that are in fact inconsistent with their own preferences; this is a dilemma. Because the present research suggests that the discrepancy between value and surgery choice is extremely resilient, much research still needs to be done in order to understand what underlies the discrepancy, with the goal of eliminating it.

The research reported in this decision of the month is currently in press. Please come back to this page in the near future for a link to the article.

Read the article:

Can avoidance of complications lead to biased healthcare decisions?
Amsterlaw J, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Judgment and Decision Making 2006;1(1):64-75.

 

 

 

Bioethics Grand Rounds -Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil

Wed, October 25, 2017, 12:00pm
Location: 
UH Ford Auditorium

Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil

Title – "Ethical Issues Related to Fundraising from Grateful Patients"

Abstract: Health care institutions are becoming increasingly deliberate about philanthropic fundraising given the need to sustain their missions in the face of decreases in governmental research funds and lowering reimbursement for clinical care.  Donations from grateful patients constitute 20% of all philanthropic contributions to academic medical centers, totaling nearly $1 billion a year in recent years.  Institutions frequently employ development professionals to facilitate philanthropy. The development literature describes various approaches for identifying patients capable of contributing, cultivating potential donors, and engaging physicians in the solicitation of grateful patients, emphasizing that patients themselves may also benefit from exercising altruism in this way.  However, little evidence exists to guide the ethical practice of grateful patient fundraising, and concerns exist regarding privacy and confidentiality, patient vulnerability, and physicians' conflicts of obligations in this context.  Therefore, we will discuss how the process of philanthropic development should be structured in order to demonstrate respect for all persons involved, including patients who donate, those who might consider donation, those who do not wish to donate, and those who cannot afford to do so.

Lunch is provided. Please note: Lunch is first come, first served.

 

CBSSM is soliciting applications from qualified individuals for 1-2 postdoctoral research fellow positions for the 2018-2019 academic year.

The mission of CBSSM is to be the premier intellectual gathering place of clinicians, social scientists, bioethicists, and all others interested in improving individual and societal health through scholarship and service.

Bioethics Post-Doctoral Research Fellow
Active projects in bioethics at CBSSM currently include the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine, human subjects research ethics, empirical research with relevance to clinical ethics, global bioethics, gender equity, reproductive justice, deliberative democratic methods in bioethics, resource allocation, ethical issues associated with learning health systems, and the sociology of medical ethics/bioethics, among others. Candidates' area of focus must be in bioethics, although their backgrounds may be in social or natural sciences, humanities, medicine, or law.

Decision Sciences Post-Doctoral Research Fellow
This fellowship focuses on understanding and improving the health care communication and decisions made by both patients and providers. Past postdoctoral fellows have included scholars whose research in health care communication and decision making has been approached using theories drawn from social cognition, motivation and emotion, risk communication, human factors, ethics, and economics.

Postdoctoral fellows are expected to collaborate on established projects and are encouraged to conduct independent research with an emphasis on study inception, manuscript writing, and applying for grants. CBSSM’s resources and collaborative support enable fellows to build their own research programs.

Please see: http://cbssm.med.umich.edu/training-mentoring/post-doctoral-fellowship for more details about these fellowship opportunities.

 

Investigator(s)

Conference

Title of Talk/Poster

Ray De Vries

Lisa Harris

et al.

American Society for Bioethics & Humanities (ASBH)

Annual Meeting

 

“Mundane Reproductive Ethics: Beyond the Sensational Lie"

 

"Everyday Ethical Problems in Abortion, In Vitro Fertilization, Pregnancy Planning, and Birth"

 

Ray De Vries

Susan Goold

et al.

American Society for Bioethics & Humanities (ASBH)

Annual Meeting

 

“Learning about Learning from the Public: A Workshop about Methods of Public Engagement on Ethical Issues in Biomedical Research, Health, and Health Care"

 

Angela Fagerlin

et al.

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

 

“Minority Cancer Survivors' Perceptions and Experience with Cancer Clinical Trials Participation"

Angela Fagerlin

Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis

Sarah Hawley

Holly Witteman

et al.

 

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

“Preferences for Breast Cancer Chemoprevention"

Angela Fagerlin

Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis

Brian Zikmund-Fisher

et al.

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

 

“Informed Decision Making About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: RCT of an Online Decision Aid Intervention"

Angela Fagerlin

Valerie Kahn

et al.

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

 

“Literacy and Numeracy in Veterans and Their Impact on Cancer Treatment Perceptions and Anxiety"

Angela Fagerlin

Laura Scherer

et al.

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

 

“Anxiety as an Impetus for Action: On the Relative Influence of Breast Cancer Risk and Breast Cancer Anxiety on Chemoprevention Decisions"

Angela Fagerlin

Laura Scherer

et al.

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

 

“Literacy and Irrational Decisions: Bias From Beliefs, Not From Comprehension"

Angela Fagerlin

Holly Witteman

Brian Zikmund-Fisher

et al.

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

 

“Integers Are Better: Adding Decimals to Risk Estimates Makes Them Less Believable and Harder to Remember"

Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis

Holly Witteman

Brian Zikmund-Fisher

et al.

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

 

“Avatars and Animation of Risk Graphics Help People Better Understand Their Risk of Cardiovascular Disease"

Holly Witteman

Brian Zikmund-Fisher

et al.

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

 

 

“If I'm Not High Risk, Then That's Not My Risk: Tailoring Estimates for Low-risk Patients May Undermine Perceived Relevance"

 

Brian Zikmund-Fisher

et al.

Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM) Annual Meeting

“The Effect of Narrative Content and Emotional Valence on Decision About Treatments for Early Stage Breast Cancer"

 

2016 Bishop Lecture featuring William Dale, MD, PhD

Wed, April 27, 2016, 10:30am
Location: 
Founders Room, Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher St., Ann Arbor, MI

The 2016 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics was presented by William Dale, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Medicine; Chief, Section of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine; and Director, Specialized Oncology Care & Research in the Elderly (SOCARE) Clinic at the University of Chicago. Dr. Dale presented, "Why Do We So Often Overtreat, Undertreat, and Mistreat Older Adults with Cancer?" The Bishop Lecture served as the keynote address during the CBSSM Research Colloquium.

Abstract: The US health care system is being confronted with the consequences of aging as the baby-boomers join Social Security and Medicare, with cancer care front-and-center.  Two recent IOM reports, Retooling for an Aging America and Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis, highlight these intersecting areas.  Delivering high quality care for older adults with cancer, at an affordable cost, in a transforming health delivery system will be addressed from a personal, clinical, and policy perspective.

William Dale, MD, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Medicine and the Section Chief of Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine at the University of Chicago, with a secondary appointment in Hematology/Oncology.  He is a board-certified internist and geriatrician with a doctorate in health policy. He completed his medical and graduate school training at the University of Chicago, did his residency in internal medicine and fellowship in geriatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, and then returned to the University of Chicago.

Dr. Dale has devoted his career to the care of older adults with cancer.  In 2006, He established, and now co-directs, the Specialized Oncology Care & Research in the Elderly (SOCARE) Clinic at the University of Chicago. SOCARE offers interdisciplinary, individualized, and integrated treatment for older cancer patients. It provides a special environment for addressing the issues relevant to older cancer patients and their loved ones and integrating research into this special clinic environment.

Dr. Dale is an international speaker who has published over 50 papers in top journals on medical decision making, behavioral economics, quality of life, and frailty assessment in older adults, particularly those with cancer. He and his team have shown the important role emotions like anxiety play in medical decisions for older adults. He has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Cancer Institute (NCI), American Cancer Society, and the Foundation of Informed Medical Decision Making. With NIH funding, he has co-led a series of national conferences with international experts on geriatric-oncology.  He is a co-investigator for the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP), a survey and biomeasure collection on the health, well-being, and social life of over 3,000 older adults.

  • Click here for video-recording of the 2016 Bishop Lecture

Leaving the Emergency Room in a Fog (Sep-09)

Consider this scenario:

Alfred made a visit to his local Emergency Room. What was his diagnosis? What did the medical team do for his problem? What was he supposed to do to continue care at home? And what symptoms was he supposed to watch for to alert him to return to the ER?

Alfred woke up at 4 am on Sunday morning with pain in his left foot. That place where his new running shoes had rubbed a raw spot earlier in the week was getting worse. By 9 am, the foot was red and swollen, with a large oozing sore, and Alfred decided to go to the Emergency Room at his local hospital.

Late on Sunday afternoon, Alfred returned home from the ER. He crutched his way into the house and collapsed on the sofa. His teenage son quizzed him.

"What did they say was wrong?"
"Oh, an infection," replied Alfred.
"Well, what did they do for it?"
"I think they cut a chunk out of my foot," said Alfred.
"Whoa! Did they give you any medicine?"
"Yeah, a shot," said Alfred.
"And what’s with the crutches?"
"I’m supposed to use them for a while," said Alfred, looking annoyed.
"How long a while?"
"It’s written down," said Alfred, digging a crumpled sheet of paper out of his pocket.
"Says here you should take some prescription and elevate your left leg for two days."
"Two days? I have to go to work tomorrow," groaned Alfred.
"And you’re supposed to go back to the ER if you have a fever or pain in your leg. Where’s the prescription?"
"Here, look through my wallet. Maybe I stuck it in there," said Alfred.
The good news is that Alfred recovered completely, with some assistance and cajoling from his son. But how common is it for people who go to the Emergency Room to be foggy about what happened and what they should do once they leave the ER?
What do you think is the percentage of ER patients who do not understand at least one of the following: their diagnosis, the emergency care they received, their discharge care, or their return instructions?
 
  • 38%
  • 48%
  • 78%
  • 88%

How do your answers compare?

A recent study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine found that 78% of emergency room patients showed deficient comprehension in at least one of these areas:
 
  • Diagnosis
  • Emergency care that was given
  • Post-ER care needs
  • Symptoms that would require a return to the ER
51% of patients showed deficient comprehension in two or more areas. Only 22% of reports from patients were in complete harmony with what their care teams reported in all four areas. The biggest area of misunderstanding was in patients' post-ER care needs, such as medications, self-care steps, follow-up from their regular doctors, or follow-up with specialists.
 
Even more alarming is that, according to the study, "most patients appear to be unaware of their lack of understanding and report inappropriate confidence in their comprehension and recall." The patients were quite sure of what they knew 80% of the time—even when what they knew was not right.
 
These results suggest that Emergency Room teams need to do a better job of making sure that patients go home with clear information and instructions—and that patients and their loved ones shouldn't leave until they fully comprehend their situation.
 
Lead author Kirsten G. Engel, MD, conducted this study, "Patient Comprehension of Emergency Department Care and Instructions," with Michele Heisler, MD, Dylan M. Smith, PhD , Claire H. Robinson, MPH, Jane H.Forman, ScD, MHS, and Peter A. Ubel, MD, most of whom are affiliated with CBDSM.
 
The researchers carried out detailed interviews with 140 English-speaking patients who visited one of two Emergency Departments in southeast Michigan and were released to go home. These interviews were compared with the patients' medical records, and the comparisons revealed serious mismatches between what the medical teams found or advised and what the patients comprehended.
 
"It is critical that emergency patients understand their diagnosis, their care, and, perhaps most important, their discharge instructions," says Kirsten Engel, a former UM Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar who is now at Northwestern University. "It is disturbing that so many patients do not understand their post-Emergency-Department care, and that they do not even recognize where the gaps in understanding are. Patients who fail to follow discharge instructions may have a greater likelihood of complications after leaving the Emergency Department."
 
Peter A. Ubel, the study's senior author, agrees: "Doctors need to not only ask patients if they have questions, but ask them to explain, in their own words, what they think is wrong with their health and what they can do about it. And patients need to ask their doctors more questions, and even need to explain to their doctors what they think is going on."
 
Read the article:

 

Edward Goldman, JD, BA

Faculty

From 1978 to 2009, Ed was head of the U-M Health System Legal Office.  In 2009 he moved into the Medical School Department of ObGyn as an Associate Professor to work full-time on issues of sexual rights and reproductive justice.  He has teaching appointments in the Medical School, the School of Public Health, the Law School, and LSA Women's Studies.  He teaches courses on the legal and ethical aspects of medicine at the Medical School, the rules of human subjects research at the School of Public Health and reproductive justice in LSA and the Law School..  In 2011, Ed went to Ghana and helpe

Research Interests: 
Last Name: 
Goldman

Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA

Faculty

Dr. Naomi T. Laventhal joined the University of Michigan in August 2009, after completing her residency in pediatrics, fellowships in neonatology and clinical medical ethics, and a master’s degree in public policy at the University of Chicago. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases in the Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, and in the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM).

Last Name: 
Laventhal

Pages