Review Article
An introduction to behavioural decision-making theories for paediatricians
Marlyse F. Haward,
Annie Janvier,
Corresponding Author
Marlyse F. Haward
Department of Paediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Bronx, NY, USA
Division of Neonatology, The Valley Hospital, Ridgewood, NJ, USA
Correspondence
Marlyse F. Haward, Weiler Hospital Division of Neonatology, 1825 Eastchester Road, Bronx, NY 10024, USA.
Tel: +718-904-4105 |
Fax: +718-904-2659 |
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAnnie Janvier
Department of Paediatrics and Clinical Ethics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
Neonatology and Clinical Ethics, Hôpital Sainte-Justine Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorMarlyse F. Haward,
Annie Janvier,
Corresponding Author
Marlyse F. Haward
Department of Paediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Bronx, NY, USA
Division of Neonatology, The Valley Hospital, Ridgewood, NJ, USA
Correspondence
Marlyse F. Haward, Weiler Hospital Division of Neonatology, 1825 Eastchester Road, Bronx, NY 10024, USA.
Tel: +718-904-4105 |
Fax: +718-904-2659 |
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAnnie Janvier
Department of Paediatrics and Clinical Ethics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
Neonatology and Clinical Ethics, Hôpital Sainte-Justine Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Behavioural decision-making theories provide insights into how people make choices under conditions of uncertainty. However, few have been studied in paediatrics. This study introduces these theories, reviews current research and makes recommendations for their application within the context of shared decision-making.
Conclusion
As parents are expected to share decision-making in paediatrics, it is critical that the fields of behavioural economics, communication and decision sciences merge with paediatric clinical ethics to optimise decision-making.
References
- 1Schloendorff V. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (1914).
- 2Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician patient relationship. JAMA 1992; 267: 2221–6.
- 3White DB, Malvar G, Karr J, Lo B, Curtis R. Expanding the paradigm of the physician's role in surrogate decision-making: an empirically derived framework. Crit Care Med 2010; 38: 743–50.
- 4Johnson SK, Bautista CA, Hong SY, Weissfeld L, White DB. An empirical study of surrogates’ preferred level of control over value-laden life support decisions in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 183: 915–21.
- 5Madrigal V, Carroll KW, Hexem KR, Faerber JA, Morrison WE, Feudtner C. Parental decision-making preferences in the pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2012; 40: 2876–82.
- 6Janvier A, Leblanc I, Barrington KJ. Nobody likes premies: the relative value of patients’ lives. J Perinatol 2008; 28: 821–6.
- 7Plous S. The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1993.
- 8Tarride J, Burke N, Bischof M, Hopkins RB, Goeree L, Campbell K, et al. A review of health utilities across conditions common in paediatric and adult populations. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010; 8: 1–11. Available at: http://www.hqlo.com/content/8/1/12.
- 9Saigal S, Tyson J. Measurement of quality of life of survivors of neonatal intensive care critique and implications. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32: 59–66.
- 10Elwyn G, Stiel M, Durand MA, Boivin J. The design of patient decision support interventions: addressing the theory-practice gap. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17: 565–74.
- 11Payot A, Barrington K. The quality of life of young children and infants with chronic medical problems: review of the literature. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 2011; 41: 91–101.
- 12Saigal S, Feeny D, Rosenbaum P, Furlong W, Burrows E, Stoskopf B. Self-perceived health status and health-related quality of life of extremely low-birth-weight infants at adolescence. JAMA 1996; 276: 453–9.
- 13Blinman P, King M, Norman R, Viney R, Stockler MR. Preferences for cancer treatments: an overview of methods and applications in oncology. Ann Oncol 2012; 23: 1104–10.
- 14Wilson TD, Gilbert DR. Affective forecasting: knowing what to want. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2005; 14: 131–4.
- 15Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 977–88.
- 16Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263–91.
- 17Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453–8.
- 18Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974; 185: 1124–31.
- 19Croskerry P. From mindless to mindful practice- cognitive bias and clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 2445–8.
- 20Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 2011; 62: 451–82.
- 21Gigerenzer G. Fast and frugal heuristics: the tools of bounded rationality. In D Koehler, N Harvey, editors. Handbook of judgement and decision making. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2004: 62–88.
10.1002/9780470752937.ch4 Google Scholar
- 22Haward MF, Murphy RO, Lorenz JM. Message framing and perinatal decisions. Pediatrics 2008; 122: 109–18.
- 23Haward MF, John LK, Lorenz JM, Fischhoff B. Effects of description of options on parental perinatal decision-making. Pediatrics 2012; 129: 891–7.
- 24Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zickmund-Fisher BJ, Derry HA, McClure J, Stark A, et al. Testing whether decision aids introduce cognitive biases: results of a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns 2010; 80: 158–63.
- 25Janvier A, Lorenz JM, Lantos J. Antenatal counselling for parents facing an extremely preterm birth: limitations of the medical evidence. Acta Paediatr 2012; 101: 800–4.
- 26Loewenstein G, Weber E, Hsee K, Welch N. Risk as feeling. Psychol Bull 2001; 127: 267–86.
- 27Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG. The affect heuristic. In T Gilovich, DW Griffin, D Kahneman, editors. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002: 397–420.
10.1017/CBO9780511808098.025 Google Scholar
- 28Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio H. Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain 2000; 12: 2189–202.
- 29Feudtner C, Carroll K, Hexem KR, Silberman J, Kang T, Kazak A. Parental hopeful patterns of thinking, emotions, and pediatric palliative care decision making: a prospective cohort study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164: 831–9.
- 30Lipstein E, Brinkman W, Britto M. What is known about parents’ treatment decisions? A narrative review of pediatric decision making. Med Decis Making 2012; 32: 246–58.
- 31Zeelenberg G. Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making. J Behav Decis Mak 1999; 12: 93–106.
- 32Connolly T, Zeelenberg G. Regret in decision making. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2002; 1: 212–6.
- 33Mazur DJ, Hickman DH. Patients’ interpretations of probability terms. J Gen Intern Med 1991; 6: 237–40.
- 34Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Fitzgerald G, Putt M, Ubel PA. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med Decis Making 2002; 22: 76–83.
- 35Britt DW, Evans WJ, Mehta SS, Evans MI. Framing the decision: determinants of how women considering multifetal pregnancy reduction as a pregnancy-management strategy frame their moral dilemma. Fetal Diagn Ther 2004; 19: 232–40.
- 36McNeil B, Parker S, Sox H Jr, Tversky A. On elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 1259–62.
- 37Shiloh S, Sagi M. Effect of framing on the perception of genetic recurrence risks. Am J Med Genet 1989; 33: 130–5.
- 38Welkenhuysen M, Evers-Kiebooms G, d'Ydewalle G. The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient Educ Couns 2001; 43: 179–87.
- 39Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johanson S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 543–8.
- 40Abramsky L, Fletcher O. Interpreting information: what is said, what is heard: a questionnaire study of health professionals and members of the public. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 1188–94.
- 41Grimes DA, Snively GR. Patient understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counseling. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93: 910–4.
- 42McCaul KD, Johnson RJ, Rothman AJ. The effects of framing and action instruction in whether older adults obtain flu shots. Health Psychol 2002; 21: 624–8.
- 43Abhyankar P, O'Connor D, Lawton R. The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: evidence of a loss frame advantage. Psychol Health Med 2008; 13: 1–16.
- 44Gainforth HL, Cao W, Latimer-Cheung AE. Message Framing and Parents’ Intentions to have their children vaccinated against HPV. Public Health Nurs 2012; 29: 542–52.
- 45Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 37–44.
- 46Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 696–713.
- 47Von Neumann J, Morganstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947.
- 48Janvier A, Leuthner SR. Chronic patients, burdensome interventions. Vietnam effect. Acta Paediatr 2013; 102: 669–70.
- 49Fischhoff B, Kadvany J. Risk: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
10.1093/actrade/9780199576203.001.0001 Google Scholar
- 50Rothberg MB, Sivalingam SK, Ashraf J, Visintainer P, Joelson J, Kleppel R, et al. Patients’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153: 307–13.
- 51Schenker Y, Meisel A. Informed consent in clinical care practical considerations in the effort to achieve ethical goals. JAMA 2011; 305: 1130–1.
- 52Griswold KJ, Fanaroff JM. An evidence based overview of prenatal consultation with a focus on infants born at the limits of viability. Pediatrics 2010; 125: e931–7.
- 53Meisel A, Kuczewski M. Legal and ethical myths about informed consent. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2521–6.
- 54Janvier A, Barrington K, Farlow B. Communication with parents concerning withdrawing or withholding life sustaining interventions. Semin Perinatol 2014; 38: 38–46.
- 55Guillén Ú, Suh S, Munson D, Posencheg M, Truitt E, Zupancic JA, et al. Development and pretesting of a decision-aid to use when counseling parents facing imminent extreme premature delivery. J Pediatr 2012; 160: 382–7.
- 56Politi MC, Han PK, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 681–95.
- 57Hartzband P, Groopman J. There is more to life than death. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 987–9.
Citing Literature
