Should Assessments of Decision-Making Capacity Be Risk-Sensitive? A Systematic Review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The concept of decision-making capacity (DMC) or competence remains controversial, despite widespread use. Risk-sensitive DMC assessment (RS-DMC)—the idea that the higher the risk involved in a decision, the greater the decisional abilities required for DMC—has been particularly controversial. We conducted a systematic, descriptive review of the arguments for and against RS-DMC to clarify the debate. Methods
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), PsycInfo (American Psychological Association) and Philpapers, updating our search to February 15th, 2022. We targeted peer-reviewed publications in English that argue for or against RS-DMC. Two reviewers independently screened the publications and extracted data from each eligible manuscript. Results
Of 41 eligible publications, 22 supported a risk-sensitive threshold in DMC assessment. Most arguments for RS-DMC rely on its intuitive appeal and practical merits. The arguments against RS-DMC primarily express concerns about paternalism and the seeming asymmetry between consent and refusal; critics of RS-DMC support epistemic, rather than substantive (i.e., variable threshold), risk-sensitivity; counterarguments responding to criticisms of RS-DMC address charges of paternalism and exhibit a notable variety of responses to the issue of asymmetry. Authors used a variety of frameworks regarding the definition of DMC, its elements, and its relation to decisional authority, and these frameworks were significantly associated with positions on RS-DMC. A limitation of our review is that the coding relies on judgment and interpretation. Conclusion
The review suggests that some of the debate about RS-DMC stems from differences in underlying frameworks. Most defenses of RS-DMC rely on its intuitive appeal, while most criticisms reflect concerns about paternalism or the asymmetry between consent and refusal. Defenses of RS-DMC respond to the asymmetry problem in a variety of ways. Further research is needed on the implications of underlying frameworks, the asymmetry problem, and the distinction between epistemic and substantive models of RS-DMC.
SUBMITTER: Berens N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9277305 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM-related outcomes. METHODS:This was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently. RESULTS:Thirty-two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty-six per cent of 13?176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient- or surgeon-driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision-making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty-five different SDM-related outcomes were reported. CONCLUSION:At present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.
| S-EPMC6282808 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background/objectivesAs the elderly population and associated number of persons with dementia increase, so does the need for decision-making capacity assessments (DMCAs). Many healthcare professionals (HCPs), however, do not feel prepared to conduct DMCAs. We have provided 4-h DMCA workshops to HCPs since 2006 and offered physicians either a 3-h or 2-day DMCA workshop from 2013 to present. We evaluated the effectiveness of the workshops on self-reported key concepts of capacity.DesignPre-/post-test design.SettingDMCA workshops for physicians across Canada and HCPs within Alberta.ParticipantsTwo hundred and eighty-one physicians and 835 HCPs.MeasurementsPre-/post-workshop ratings on level of comfort with and understanding of 15 core DMCA concepts using 4-point Likert-type items.ResultsFor the DMCA workshops among physicians, ten 3-h workshops were held in 2014-2015 with 166 participants and seven 2-day workshops, between 2014 and 2018, with 115 participants. With respect to the self-report on core DMCA concepts, at least 62.7% (range: 62.7%-89.6%) of physician participants had higher post-workshop ratings (sign test; p < 0.001) than pre-workshop ratings for all core DMCA concepts. For the DMCA workshops among HCPs, 4-h workshops were delivered to 835 HCP participants from 2008 to 2012. At least 49.6% of participants (range: 49.6%-78.9%) had increased post-workshop ratings (sign test; p < 0.001) for all level of comfort items with and understanding of core DMCA concepts.ConclusionThere is a need for DMCA training for physicians and HCPs. The content and method of the workshops are effective at enhancing self-reported level of comfort with and understanding of core DMCA concepts.
| S-EPMC8247986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Shared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions.The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients.PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials.Six RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement.Most computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious illness.
| S-EPMC5650682 | biostudies-other
Project description:The current study assessed peripheral responses during decision making under explicit risk, and tested whether intraindividual variability in choice behavior can be explained by fluctuations in peripheral arousal. Electrodermal activity (EDA) and heart rate (HR) were monitored in healthy volunteers (N = 68) during the Roulette Betting Task. In this task, participants were presented with risky gambles to bet on, with the chances of winning varying across trials. Hierarchical Bayesian analyses demonstrated that EDA and HR acceleration responses during the decision phase were sensitive to the chances of winning. Interindividual differences in this peripheral reactivity during risky decision making were related to trait sensitivity to punishment and trait sensitivity to reward. Moreover, trial-by-trial variation in EDA and HR acceleration responses predicted a small portion of intraindividual variability in betting choices. Our results show that psychophysiological responses are sensitive to explicit risk and can help explain intraindividual heterogeneity in choice behavior.
| S-EPMC4869679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTherapeutic decision-making in oncology is a complex process because physicians must consider many forms of medical data and protocols. Another challenge for physicians is to clearly communicate their decision-making process to patients to ensure informed consent. Computer-based decision tools have the potential to play a valuable role in supporting this process.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to investigate the extent to which computer-based decision tools have been successfully adopted in oncology consultations to improve patient-physician joint therapeutic decision-making.MethodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist and guidelines. A literature search was conducted on February 4, 2021, across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (from 2005 to January 28, 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (December 2020), MEDLINE (from 1946 to February 4, 2021), Embase (from 1947 to February 4, 2021), Web of Science (from 1900 to 2021), Scopus (from 1969 to 2021), and PubMed (from 1991 to 2021). We used a snowball approach to identify additional studies by searching the reference lists of the studies included for full-text review. Additional supplementary searches of relevant journals and gray literature websites were conducted. The reviewers screened the articles eligible for review for quality and inclusion before data extraction.ResultsThere are relatively few studies looking at the use of computer-based decision tools in oncology consultations. Of the 4431 unique articles obtained from the searches, only 10 (0.22%) satisfied the selection criteria. From the 10 selected studies, 8 computer-based decision tools were identified. Of the 10 studies, 6 (60%) were conducted in the United States. Communication and information-sharing were improved between physicians and patients. However, physicians did not change their habits to take advantage of computer-assisted decision-making tools or the information they provide. On average, the use of these computer-based decision tools added approximately 5 minutes to the total length of consultations. In addition, some physicians felt that the technology increased patients' anxiety.ConclusionsOf the 10 selected studies, 6 (60%) demonstrated positive outcomes, 1 (10%) showed negative results, and 3 (30%) were neutral. Adoption of computer-based decision tools during oncology consultations continues to be low. This review shows that information-sharing and communication between physicians and patients can be improved with the assistance of technology. However, the lack of integration with electronic health records is a barrier. This review provides key requirements for enhancing the chance of success of future computer-based decision tools. However, it does not show the effects of health care policies, regulations, or business administration on physicians' propensity to adopt the technology. Nevertheless, it is important that future research address the influence of these higher-level factors as well.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021226087; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021226087.
| S-EPMC8579220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this systematic review conducted in the topic of youth team-sports players was three-fold: (i) Analyze the variations of decision-making processes between low- and high-level youth players; (ii) analyze the variations of decision-making processes between different age groups; and (iii) analyze the effects of decision-making training-based programs on youth players. Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this systematic review searched for studies on PubMed, ScienceDirect, Academic Search Complete, SPORTDiscus, and Taylor & Francis Online. The search returned 6215 papers. After screening the records against set criteria, 26 articles were fully reviewed. From the included studies, 9 were focused on comparing the decision-making process between low- and high-level players, 6 compared the decisions made by players from different age categories, and 11 analyzed the effects of decision-making-based training programs on youth players. Comparisons between high- and low-level players suggested that high-level and most talented players present a greater accuracy in the cognitive and executive answers to the game as well as being more adjustable to more complex situations. Considering the comparisons between age groups, a tendency of older players to execute more accurate decisions in the game and to have better tactical knowledge and behavior was observed. Finally, the effects of decision-making training programs suggest a beneficial effect employing practical scenarios (mainly based on small-sided and conditioned games), primarily improving passing decisions and execution. However, the benefits of interventions using videos are not clear.
| S-EPMC7312689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.DesignSystematic review.Eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM.Information sourcesAcademic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.ResultsForty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment options was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: Make the decision (75%), Patient preferences (65%), Tailor information (65%), Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), and Learn about the patient (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, Describe treatment options and Make the decision are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. Create choice awareness stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time.ConclusionsThis review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration CRD42015019740.
| S-EPMC6937101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Parents or caregivers of children who are deaf or hard of hearing are required to make complex and rational decisions soon after the confirmation of hearing loss. Ways of facilitating decision-making have been a focus within the healthcare sector for two decades and shared decision-making is now widely viewed as the standard for good clinical care. A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify the extent to which the principles of shared decision-making and informed choice have been implemented for parents when they make decisions related to their children with permanent hearing loss. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers describing the results of original research published from 2000 to 2017, yielding 37 relevant papers. Studies were reviewed using the three phases of decision-making-information exchange, deliberation, and implementation. Two decisions dominated these studies-implantable devices and communication modality. Most papers dealt with decision-making in the context of bilateral hearing loss, with only one study focusing on unilateral hearing loss. The review identified gaps where further research is needed to ensure the lessons learnt in the broader decision-making literature are implemented when parents make decisions regarding their child who is deaf or hard of hearing.
| S-EPMC6455895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCollective intelligence, facilitated by information technology or manual techniques, refers to the collective insight of groups working on a task and has the potential to generate more accurate information or decisions than individuals can make alone. This concept is gaining traction in healthcare and has potential in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. We aim to characterize the current state of research with respect to collective intelligence in medical decision-making and describe a framework for diverse studies in this topic.MethodsFor this systematic scoping review, we conducted a systematic search for published literature using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL on August 8, 2017. We included studies that combined the insights of two or more medical experts to make decisions related to patient care. Studies that examined medical decisions such as diagnosis, treatment, and management in the context of an actual or theoretical patient case were included. We include studies of complex medical decision-making rather than identification of a visual finding, as in radiology or pathology. We differentiate between medical decisions, in which synthesis of multiple types of information is required over time, and studies of radiological scans or pathological specimens, in which objective identification of a visual finding is performed. Two reviewers performed article screening, data extraction, and final inclusion for analysis.ResultsOf 3303 original articles, 15 were included. Each study examined the medical decisions of two or more individuals; however, studies were heterogeneous in their methods and outcomes. We present a framework to characterize these diverse studies, and future investigations, based on how they operationalize collective intelligence for medical decision-making: 1) how the initial decision task was completed (group vs. individual), 2) how opinions were synthesized (information technology vs. manual vs. in-person), and 3) the availability of collective intelligence to participants.DiscussionCollective intelligence in medical decision-making is gaining popularity to advance medical decision-making and holds promise to improve patient outcomes. However, heterogeneous methods and outcomes make it difficult to assess the utility of collective intelligence approaches across settings and studies. A better understanding of collective intelligence and its applications to medicine may improve medical decision-making.
| S-EPMC6688241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We present a dynamical systems analysis of a decision-making mechanism inspired by collective choice in house-hunting honeybee swarms, revealing the crucial role of cross-inhibitory 'stop-signalling' in improving the decision-making capabilities. We show that strength of cross-inhibition is a decision-parameter influencing how decisions depend both on the difference in value and on the mean value of the alternatives; this is in contrast to many previous mechanistic models of decision-making, which are typically sensitive to decision accuracy rather than the value of the option chosen. The strength of cross-inhibition determines when deadlock over similarly valued alternatives is maintained or broken, as a function of the mean value; thus, changes in cross-inhibition strength allow adaptive time-dependent decision-making strategies. Cross-inhibition also tunes the minimum difference between alternatives required for reliable discrimination, in a manner similar to Weber's law of just-noticeable difference. Finally, cross-inhibition tunes the speed-accuracy trade-off realised when differences in the values of the alternatives are sufficiently large to matter. We propose that the model, and the significant role of the values of the alternatives, may describe other decision-making systems, including intracellular regulatory circuits, and simple neural circuits, and may provide guidance in the design of decision-making algorithms for artificial systems, particularly those functioning without centralised control.
| S-EPMC3759446 | biostudies-literature