237 research outputs found
Appendix_2_online_supp – Supplemental material for Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations
No full textSupplemental material, Appendix_2_online_supp for Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations by Glen B. Taksler, Mary Beth Mercer, Angela Fagerlin and Michael B. Rothberg in MDM Policy & Practice</p
Appendix_3_online_supp – Supplemental material for Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations
No full textSupplemental material, Appendix_3_online_supp for Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations by Glen B. Taksler, Mary Beth Mercer, Angela Fagerlin and Michael B. Rothberg in MDM Policy & Practice</p
Appendix_1_online_supp – Supplemental material for Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations
No full textSupplemental material, Appendix_1_online_supp for Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations by Glen B. Taksler, Mary Beth Mercer, Angela Fagerlin and Michael B. Rothberg in MDM Policy & Practice</p
Appendix_4_online_supp – Supplemental material for Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations
No full textSupplemental material, Appendix_4_online_supp for Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations by Glen B. Taksler, Mary Beth Mercer, Angela Fagerlin and Michael B. Rothberg in MDM Policy & Practice</p
Veterans Experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (VISION-19)
No full textThis project was funded by the VA (award VA C-19-20-205 to Drs Fagerlin and Scherer for recruitment of Veterans) and Dr. Fagerlin’s Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair (for recruitment of non-Veterans). The design for the project was a longitudinal survey study of Veterans and non-Veterans (~1:1 ratio for the first survey) conducted using Qualtrics between December 2020 and March 2021. This page includes the surveys and the project outputs (e.g., manuscripts and reports). For any further enquiries please contact Drs. Angela Fagerlin [[email protected]] and Laura Scherer [[email protected]]
DS_10.1177_0272989X18782199 – Supplemental material for Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening
No full textSupplemental material, DS_10.1177_0272989X18782199 for Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening by Laura D. Scherer, Jeffrey T. Kullgren, Tanner Caverly, Aaron M. Scherer, Victoria A. Shaffer, Angela Fagerlin and Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher in Medical Decision Making</p
sj-docx-2-mdm-10.1177_0272989X211028563 – Supplemental material for Preparing Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancer to Participate in Clinical Appointments Using a Shared Decision Making Training Video
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-2-mdm-10.1177_0272989X211028563 for Preparing Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancer to Participate in Clinical Appointments Using a Shared Decision Making Training Video by Karen Scherr, Rebecca K. Delaney, Peter Ubel, Valerie C. Kahn, Daniel Hamstra, John T. Wei and Angela Fagerlin in Medical Decision Making</p
sj-docx-1-mdm-10.1177_0272989X211028563 – Supplemental material for Preparing Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancer to Participate in Clinical Appointments Using a Shared Decision Making Training Video
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-1-mdm-10.1177_0272989X211028563 for Preparing Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancer to Participate in Clinical Appointments Using a Shared Decision Making Training Video by Karen Scherr, Rebecca K. Delaney, Peter Ubel, Valerie C. Kahn, Daniel Hamstra, John T. Wei and Angela Fagerlin in Medical Decision Making</p
sj-docx-1-mpp-10.1177_23814683231204551 – Supplemental material for Parents’ Psychological and Decision-Making Outcomes following Prenatal Diagnosis with Complex Congenital Heart Defect: An Exploratory Study
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-1-mpp-10.1177_23814683231204551 for Parents’ Psychological and Decision-Making Outcomes following Prenatal Diagnosis with Complex Congenital Heart Defect: An Exploratory Study by Alistair Thorpe, Rebecca K. Delaney, Nelangi M. Pinto, Elissa M. Ozanne, Mandy L. Pershing, Lisa M. Hansen, Linda M. Lambert and Angela Fagerlin in MDM Policy & Practice</p
What Makes a Tumor Diagnosis a Call to Action? On the Preference for Action versus Inaction
No full textBackground. Many studies have shown an omission bias, but when the context is cancer, people seem to prefer active treatments to watchful waiting. Objective. First, to investigate whether the preference for active treatment for cancer could depend on the associations attached to the inaction option, and second, to explore the kind of diagnosis that gives rise to the preference for action, by comparing scenarios differing in the status of the illness (already present v. could arise in the future), the kind of diagnosis (malign tumor, benign tumor, or nontumor), and the possible development of the tumor (growth v. degeneration). Design. Between-subjects design with 8 hypothetical scenarios. Participants. A total of 735 students participated in an Internet survey. Measurements. Choice between watchful waiting and surgery, perceived severity of the diagnosis. Results. Active treatment was preferred only when the scenario described watchful waiting as excluding surgery in the future. The critical aspect for participants’ preference for active treatment was the malignancy of the tumor currently diagnosed. Perceived severity was also a significant predictor of treatment choice. Limitations. Inability to infer causation in the relationship between choice and perceived severity. Conclusions. Action is preferred to inaction when a malignant tumor is currently diagnosed and active treatments are not allowed in the future; under other conditions, participants prefer inaction (e.g., when active treatments are allowed in the future, or when the tumor is benign) or exhibit no preference (e.g., when it is not specified whether active treatments are allowed in the future)
- …
