Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2012; 51(04): 301-308
DOI: 10.3414/ME11-01-0077
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Understanding Behavioral Intent to Participate in Shared Decision-making in Medically Uncertain Situations[*]

R. M. Maffei
1   Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
,
K. Dunn
2   University of Texas Health Science Center, School of Biomedical Informatics, Houston, Texas. USA
,
J. Zhang
2   University of Texas Health Science Center, School of Biomedical Informatics, Houston, Texas. USA
,
C. E. Hsu
2   University of Texas Health Science Center, School of Biomedical Informatics, Houston, Texas. USA
,
J. H. Holmes
3   University of Pennsylvania, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received:23 September 2011

accepted:12 May 2012

Publication Date:
20 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: This article describes the process undertaken to identify and validate behavioral and normative beliefs and behavioral intent based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and applied to men between the ages of 45 and 70 in the context of their participation in shared decision-making (SDM) in medically uncertain situations. This article also discusses the preliminary results of the aforementioned processes and explores potential future uses of this information that may facilitate greater understanding, efficiency and effectiveness of clinician-patient consultations.

Materials and Methods: Twenty-five male subjects from the Philadelphia community participated in this study. Individual semi-structure patient interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached. Based on their review of the patient interview transcripts, researchers conducted a qualitative content analysis to identify prevalent themes and, subsequently, create a category framework. Qualitative indicators were used to evaluate respondents’ experiences, beliefs, and behavioral intent relative to participation in shared decision-making during medical uncertainty.

Results: Based on the themes uncovered through the content analysis, a category framework was developed to facilitate understanding and increase the accuracy of predictions related to an individual’s behavioral intent to participate in shared decision-making in medical uncertainty. The emerged themes included past experience with medical uncertainty, individual personality, and the relationship between the patient and his physician. The resulting three main framework categories include 1) an individual’s Foundation for the concept of medical uncertainty, 2) how the individual Copes with medical uncertainty, and 3) the individual’s Behavioral Intent to seek information and participate in shared decision-making during times of medically uncertain situations.

Discussion: The theme of Coping (with uncertainty) emerged as a particularly critical behavior/characteristic amongst the subjects. By understanding a subject’s disposition with regard to coping, researchers were better able to make connections between a subject’s prior experiences, their knowledge seeking activities, and their intent to participate in SDM. Despite having information and social support, the subjects still had to cope with the idea of uncertainty before determining how to proceed with regard to shared decision-making. In addition, the coping category reinforced the importance of information seeking behaviors and preferences for shared decision-making.

Conclusions: This study applies and extends the field of behavioral and health informatics to assist medical practice and decision-making in situations of medical uncertainty. More specifically, this study led to the development of a category framework that facilitates the identification of an individual’s needs and motivational factors with regard to their intent to participate in shared decision-making in situations of medical uncertainty.

Keywords

Medical uncertainty - behavioral intent - shared decision-making

* Supplementary material published on our website www.methods-online.com


 

  • References

  • 1 Murray E, Pollack L, White M, Lo B. Clinical decision-making: physicians’ preferences and experiences. BMC Family Practice 2007; 8: 10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Woolf SH, Krist A. The liability of giving patients a choice: shared decision making and prostate cancer. Am Fam Physician 2005; 71 (10) 1871-1872.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Brody DS. et al. Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 1989; 4: 506-511.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Greenfield S. et al. Expanding patient involvement in care. Ann Intern Med 1985; 102: 520-528.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Szolovits P. Uncertainty and decisions in medical informatics. Methods Inf Med 1995; 34: 111-121.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Fox RC. The Evolution of Medical Uncertainty. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 1980; 58: 1-49.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 BMJ Clinical Evidence. Jan 19, 2010 Available from: URL: http://www.clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/about/guide.jsp.
    PubMed
  • 8 Rimer BK, Glanz K. Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice. 2nd ed.. National Cancer Institute 2005.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Ghosh AK. Dealing with medically uncertainty: a physician’s perspective. Minnesota Medicine 2004; 87 (10) 48-51.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Ghosh AK. Understanding medically uncertainty: a primer for physicians. J Assoc Phys India 2004; 52: 739-742.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ghosh AK. On the challenges of using evidence-based information: the role of clinical uncertainty. J Lab Clin Med 2004; 144.2: 60-64.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Lazarus R, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Strauss S. Information preferences and information-seeking in hospitalized surgery patients. Measurement of Nursing Outcomes, Vol. 1. New York: Springer; 1988.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Fisher WA, Fisher JD, Rye BJ. Understanding and promoting AIDS-preventive behavior: Insights from the theory of reasoned action. Health Psychology 1995; 14.3: 255-264.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Montano DE. et al. A test of an expanded theory of reasoned action to predict mammography participation. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32.6: 733-741.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Manstead AS. et al. Predicting and understanding mother’s infant feeding intentions and behavior: testing the theory of reasoned action. J of Personality and Social Psychology 1983; 44.4: 657-671.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bagozzi R. et al. State versus action orientation and the theory of reasoned action: An application to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research 1992; 18 (04) 505-518.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Morrison DM. et al. Determinants of condom use among high-risk heterosexual adults: a test of the theory of reasoned action.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2006; 25.8: 651-676.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Brubaker RG, Wickersham D. Encouraging the practice of testicular self-examination: a field application in the theory of reasoned action. Health Psychology 1990; 9.2: 154-163.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Papatsoris A, Anagnostopoulos F. Prostate cancer screening behaviour. Public Health 2009; 123.1: 69-71.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Ross L. et al. Toward a model of prostate cancer information seeking: identifying salient behavioral and normative beliefs among african american men. Health Education & Behavior 2007; 34.3: 422-440.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Cao L. Behavior informatics and analytics: let behavior talk. 2008; Workshop on Domain Driven Data Mining joint with 2008 International Conference on Data Mining, IEEE Computer Society Press 2008: 87-96.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Haux R. On the methodology and scientific fundamentals of organizing, representing and analyzing data, information and knowledge in biomedicine and healthcare. Methods Inf Med 2011; 50: 487-490.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Ajzen I. et al. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J Exp Soc Psychol 1986; 22: 453-474.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Légaré F. et al. Adherence to hormone replacement therapy: a longitudinal study using the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology and Health 2003; 18: 351-371.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Légaré F. et al. Variation in the psychosocial determinants of the intention to prescribe hormone therapy: a survey of GPs and gynecologists in France and Quebec. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2005; 5: 31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Gagnon MP. et al. An adaptation of the theory of interpersonal behaviour to the study of telemedicine adoption by physicians. Int J Med Inf 2003; 71: 103-115.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Foy R. et al. Which factors explain variation in intention to disclose a diagnosis of dementia? A theory-based survey of mental health professionals. Implement Sci 2007; 2: 31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003; 362: 1225-1230.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Cao L. In-depth behavior understand and use: The behavior informatics approach. Information Sciences 2010; 180: 3067-3085.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 651-661.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Fishbein M. A reasoned action approach to health promotion. MDM 2008; 28.6: 834-844.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Hsiesh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research 2005; 15 (09) 1277-1288.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Schilling J. On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: Designing the process for content analysis. EJPA 2006; 22 (01) 28-37.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Catanzaro M. Using qualitative analytical techniques. In: Woods P, Catanzaro M. (eds). Nursing Research; Theory and Practice New York: C.V. Mosby Company; 1988: 437-456.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Borycki EM. et al. Technology-induced errors: the current use of frameworks and models from the biomedical and life sciences literatures. Methods Inf Med 2011; 51 (02) 95-103.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Gramlich EP, Waitzfelder BE. Interactive video assists in clinical decision-making. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37 (02) 201-205.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Politi MC. et al. Communication the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Medical Decision-Making 2007; 27 (05) 681-695.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Babrow AS, Kline KN. From “reducing” to “coping with” uncertainty: reconceptualizing the central challenge in breast self-exams. Soci Sci Med 2000; 51 (12) 1805-1816.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Brashers DE. Communication and uncertainty management. J Commun 2001; 51 (03) 477-497.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Rimer BK, Glassman B. Tailoring communications for primary care settings. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37 (02) 171-177.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Kulikowski CA. Biomedical and health informatics in translational medicine. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48 (01) 4-10.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008; 62 (01) 107-115.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Kraetschmer N. et al. How does trust affect patient preferences for participation in decision-making?. Health Expect 2004; 7 (04) 317-326.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Fraenkel L, McGraw S. What are the essential elements to enable patient participation in medical decision making?. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22 (05) 614-619.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Levinson W. et al. Not all patients want to participate in decision-making. a national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20: 531-535.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Fraenkel I, McGraw S. Participation in medical decision-making: The patient perspective. Med Decis Making 2007; 27 (05) 533-538.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar