Search

An infant has a massive intracranial hemorrhage. She is neurologically devastated and ventilator-dependent. The prognosis for pulmonary or neurologic recovery is bleak. The physicians and parents face a choice: withdraw the ventilator and allow her to die or perform a tracheotomy? The parents cling to hope for recovery. The physician must decide how blunt to be in communicating his own opinions and recommendations. Should the physician try to give just the facts? Or should he also make a recommendation based on his own values? In this article, experts in neonatology, decision-making, and bioethics discuss this situation and the choice that the physician faces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient decision aids, such as instructional leaflets describing treatment options for prostate cancer, are designed to help educate patients so that they can share in decisions about their care. Developers of these decision aids strive for balance, aiming to be as neutral, unbiased, and nondirective as possible. We argue that balance should not always be a goal, and we identify three situations where it should not be. For example, men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer frequently are not advised by their physicians that active surveillance is a reasonable alternative to immediate surgery or radiation. It may be desirable to design decision aids that promote active surveillance as an option. We recognize that the arguments put forth in this article are controversial. But they are also justified. We challenge medical decision makers and decision aid developers to determine if and when patients should be "nudged" toward one option or another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors conveys their concerns about behavioral economics and the future of genomic medicine. Topics discussed include the increase in colorectal cancer screening through individualized risk assessment and counseling, the average lifetime risk for breast cancer, and the need to abandon the neutral measures that have qualified the field of generic counseling.

Background: Personalized risk (PR) estimates may enhance clinical decision making and risk communication by providing individualized estimates of patient outcomes. We explored stakeholder attitudes toward the utility, acceptability, usefulness and best-practices for integrating PR estimates into patient education and decision making about Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD)., Methods and Results: As part of a 5-year multi-institutional AHRQ project, we conducted 40 interviews with stakeholders (physicians, nurse coordinators, patients, and caregivers), analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. All stakeholder groups voiced positive views towards integrating PR in decision making. Patients, caregivers and coordinators emphasized that PR can help to better understand a patient's condition and risks, prepare mentally and logistically for likely outcomes, and meaningfully engage in decision making. Physicians felt it can improve their decision making by enhancing insight into outcomes, enhance tailored pre-emptive care, increase confidence in decisions, and reduce bias and subjectivity. All stakeholder groups also raised concerns about accuracy, representativeness and relevance of algorithms; predictive uncertainty; utility in relation to physician's expertise; potential negative reactions among patients; and overreliance., Conclusion: Stakeholders are optimistic about integrating PR into clinical decision making, but acceptability depends on prospectively demonstrating accuracy, relevance and evidence that benefits of PR outweigh potential negative impacts on decision making quality., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Thank you for your time and consideration. This article has not been published previously and is not under consideration elsewhere. There are no conflicts of interests to report. All authors agree with the content of the manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

When applied in the health sector, AI-based applications raise not only ethical but legal and safety concerns, where algorithms trained on data from majority populations can generate less accurate or reliable results for minorities and other disadvantaged groups.

Background. Although effective interventions for shared decision making (SDM) exist, there is a lack of uptake of these tools into clinical practice. "Nudges," which draw on behavioral economics and target automatic thinking processes, are used by policy makers to influence population-level behavior change. Nudges have not been applied in the context of SDM interventions but have potential to influence clinician motivation, a primary barrier to long-term adoption of SDM tools. Objective. Describe, evaluate, and propose recommendations for the use of a behavioral economics framework (MINDSPACE) on clinician motivation and behavior during implementation of a validated decision aid (DA) for left ventricular assist device at nine hospitals. Methods. Qualitative thematic analysis of process notes from stakeholder meetings during the first 6 months of implementation to identify examples of how the MINDSPACE framework was operationalized. Quantitative implementation progress was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results. MINDSPACE components were translated into concrete approaches that leveraged influential stakeholders, fostered ownership over the DA and positive emotional associations, spread desirable norms across sites, and situated the DA within established default processes. DA reach to eligible patients increased from 9.8% in the first month of implementation to 70.0% in the sixth month. Larger gains in reach were observed following meetings using MINDSPACE approaches. Limitations. The MINDSPACE framework does not capture all possible influences on behavior and responses to nudges may differ across populations. Conclusions. Behavioral economics can be applied to implementation science to foster uptake of SDM tools by increasing clinician motivation. Our recommendations can help other researchers effectively apply these approaches in real-world settings when there are often limited incentives and opportunities to change organizational- or structural-level factors., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Jerry D. Estep serves as a medical advisor at Medtronic and a consultant and speaker for Abbott. Neither company was involved in the design or conduct of the project. None of the other authors declare any potential conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background: Illness narratives with meaningful, competent and targeted content have been shown to provide useful guides for patient decision-making and have positive influences on health behaviors. The use of narratives in decision aids can confer a sense of structure, plot and context to illness experiences and help patients make treatment decisions that feel sensible, informed, and transparent., Aim: This paper presents narratives of suffering and healing from patients and their caregivers with advanced heart failure who engaged in decision-making regarding Left Ventricular Device Assist (LVAD) treatment., Methods: Narratives were collected from in-depth interviews with patients who accepted ( n = 15) versus declined ( n = 15) LVAD implant, LVAD candidates who had received education about LVAD and were in the process of making a decision ( n = 15), and caregivers (family or significant others) of LVAD patients ( n = 15)., Results: Participants shared "restitution" narratives that most commonly conveyed a shift from pre-implant physical suffering and "daily hell," fatigue so intense it "hurts," along with emotional suffering from inability to engage with the world, to post-implant improvements in mobility and quality of life, including positivity and family support, adaptation on a "journey," "getting one's life back" and becoming "normal" again., Conclusion: For LVAD patients, other patients' illness narratives can help to give meaning to their own illness and treatment experiences and to more accurately forecast treatment impacts on lifestyle and identity. For clinicians, patient narratives can enhance patient-practitioner communication and understanding by highlighting perspectives and values that structure patients' clinical experiences.

Education is an important aspect of evaluation and consent for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) candidates. A better understanding of candidate knowledge during the education process can help identify knowledge gaps and improve informed consent processes. This paper presents the results from a validated, LVAD-specific Knowledge Scale administered to candidates before and after education to identify items most and least frequently answered correctly. At baseline and 1-week, both candidates educated with a standard education and an LVAD-specific decision aid were most likely to answer logistical items relating to support and self-care correctly with ≥90% of candidates answering these items correctly after education. Candidates were least likely to answer questions about risks, transplant eligibility, and expenses correctly with <60% of candidates answering them correctly after education. Items with the greatest improvement in correct answers from baseline to 1-week were primarily related to the logistics of living with an LVAD. Candidates educated with the decision aid showed significant improvements on more knowledge items including those related to the forecasting of recovery and complications when compared to candidates educated with a standard education. The 20-item scale provides a standardized way for clinicians to identify knowledge gaps with LVAD candidates, potentially helping to tailor education. Targeted improvements in LVAD education should focus on the understanding of risk and potential complications to ensure that decision-making and informed consent processes emphasize both the patient and clinicians' conceptualizations of knowledge needs for informed consent.