Communicating Uncertainty Can Lead to Less Decision Satisfaction: a Necessary Cost of Involving Patients in Shared Decision Making?

Overview

Journal Health Expect

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Public Health

Date 2010 Sep 24

PMID 20860780

Citations 72

Authors

Mary C Politi

Melissa A Clark

Hernando Ombao

Don Dizon

Glyn Elwyn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Given the large number of interventions of uncertain effectiveness, research on communicating uncertainty is needed to examine its impact on patients' health decisions.

Objective: To examine physicians' communication of uncertainty and its impact on patients' decisions and decision satisfaction.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Participants included female patients seen in a breast health centre whose physicians were discussing a decision with them, with no clear 'best' choice based on outcome evidence.

Main Variables: Decision communication was measured using the OPTION scale, a measure of the degree to which physicians involve patients in a decision-making process. One-to-two weeks after the discussion, patients reported their satisfaction with the decision-making process and their decision. Decisions were verified in medical charts with patient consent.

Results: Seventy-five women agreed to participate (94% response rate). The mean translated score of the OPTION scale was 68.0 (SD 18.3), but only 33.2 (SD 19.1) for the uncertainty items. Among cancer patients, communicating uncertainty was negatively related to decision satisfaction (P < 0.002), and there was an interaction between patient involvement in decisions and communicating uncertainty in relation to patients' decision satisfaction (P < 0.03).

Discussion: Communicating scientific uncertainty might lead to less decision satisfaction among women facing cancer treatment decisions; this could be a natural outcome of the decision making process. Involving patients in decisions might help them tolerate uncertainty.

Conclusion: Future studies should consider assessing other outcomes (e.g. knowledge, physician support) of the decision making process. There may be trade-offs between acknowledging uncertainty and immediate decision satisfaction.

Citing Articles

Public views of coronavirus science and scientists: findings from a cross-sectional survey.

Gooberman-Hill R, Taylor M, Maude U, Yardley L, Huxtable R, Stubbs J Wellcome Open Res. 2024; 6:166.

PMID: 39669687 PMC: 11635929. DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16780.1.

How and why do doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study.

Cox C, Hatfield T, Fritz Z Health Expect. 2024; 27(1):e13957.

PMID: 38828702 PMC: 10774830. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13957.

Dialogued into being: Constructing knowledge about hand osteoarthritis from a polyphony of voices in healthcare encounters.

Magnussen H, Kjeken I, Pinxsterhuis I, Sjovold T, Feiring M Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2024; 19(1):2330221.

PMID: 38498812 PMC: 10949837. DOI: 10.1080/17482631.2024.2330221.

Uncertainty in serious illness: A national interdisciplinary consensus exercise to identify clinical research priorities.

Etkind S, Barclay S, Spathis A, Hopkins S, Bowers B, Koffman J PLoS One. 2024; 19(2):e0289522.

PMID: 38422036 PMC: 10903860. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289522.

Strategies for Identifying Patients for Deprescribing of Blood Pressure Medications in Routine Practice: An Evidence Review.

Sheppard J, Benetos A, Bogaerts J, Gnjidic D, McManus R Curr Hypertens Rep. 2024; 26(5):225-236.

PMID: 38305846 PMC: 11153298. DOI: 10.1007/s11906-024-01293-5.

References

Street Jr R . Aiding medical decision making: a communication perspective. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27(5):550-3. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07307581. View

Schapira M, Nattinger A, McHorney C . Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2002; 21(6):459-67. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100604. View

Miller S, Fang C, Manne S, Engstrom P, Daly M . Decision making about prophylactic oophorectomy among at-risk women: psychological influences and implications. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 75(3):406-12. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5611. View

Henry M . Uncertainty, responsibility, and the evolution of the physician/patient relationship. J Med Ethics. 2006; 32(6):321-3. PMC: 2563369. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.013987. View

Ubel P . Is information always a good thing? Helping patients make "good" decisions. Med Care. 2002; 40(9 Suppl):V39-44. DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000023954.85887.69. View

Braddock 3rd C, Edwards K, Hasenberg N, Laidley T, Levinson W . Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999; 282(24):2313-20. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.24.2313. View

OConnor A, Drake E, Wells G, Tugwell P, Laupacis A, Elmslie T . A survey of the decision-making needs of Canadians faced with complex health decisions. Health Expect. 2003; 6(2):97-109. PMC: 5060179. DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2003.00215.x. View

Towle A, Godolphin W . Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ. 1999; 319(7212):766-71. PMC: 1116602. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.766. View

Tversky A, Kahneman D . Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. View

10.

Elwyn G, Miron-Shatz T . Deliberation before determination: the definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expect. 2009; 13(2):139-47. PMC: 5060530. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00572.x. View

11.

Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Silvia K, Partridge A, Mulley Jr A . An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 65(2):261-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.08.007. View

12.

OConnor A, Bennett C, Stacey D, Barry M, Col N, Eden K . Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; (3):CD001431. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub2. View

13.

Martinez L, Schwartz J, Freres D, Fraze T, Hornik R . Patient-clinician information engagement increases treatment decision satisfaction among cancer patients through feeling of being informed. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 77(3):384-90. PMC: 3279194. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.008. View

14.

Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M, Cheung W . The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 2005; 8(1):34-42. PMC: 5060272. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x. View

15.

Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jankovic A, Derry H, Smith D . Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27(5):672-80. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07304449. View

16.

Zikmund-Fisher B, Smith D, Ubel P, Fagerlin A . Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27(5):663-71. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07303824. View

17.

Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard J, Mertz C . Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007; 64(2):169-90. DOI: 10.1177/10775587070640020301. View

18.

Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, ROVNER D, Breer M, Rothert M . Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Making. 1996; 16(1):58-64. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600114. View

19.

Mitchell M, Courtney M . Reducing family members' anxiety and uncertainty in illness around transfer from intensive care: an intervention study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2004; 20(4):223-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2004.05.008. View

20.

Han P, Moser R, Klein W . Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry. J Health Commun. 2006; 11 Suppl 1:51-69. PMC: 4194067. DOI: 10.1080/10810730600637541. View