Improving informed consent - Insights from behavioral decision research

被引:22
作者
Holmes-Rovner, M
Wills, CE
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Dept Med, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[2] Michigan State Univ, Coll Human Med, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[3] Michigan State Univ, Coll Nursing, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
关键词
informed consent; heuristics and biases; provider-patient communication; decision aids; decision support;
D O I
10.1097/01.MLR.0000023953.55783.4A
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND. With publication of The Belmont Report concerning ethical principles, informed consent gained explicit guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. However, there is still little evidence about how well informed consent works to assist patients to reach informed decisions about research participation. OBJECTIVE. To review behavioral decision theory and research to identify implications for informed consent. RESEARCH DESIGN. Traditional literature review and hand search of literature were used. RESULTS. Psychological research on biases and heuristics identifies cognitive biases in information processing (selection and interpretation of risks and benefits) that have implications for improving the informing process. A growing literature on patient decision aids provides evidence for the feasibility of more fully informing patients, and includes examples of "debiasing" procedures (to improve information comprehension and consent). CONCLUSIONS. Informing and consenting involve conceptually different challenges concerning effectiveness versus values. Debiasing techniques need to be developed and empirically tested to determine their effectiveness in informing patients. Consenting involves both social and, individual values. Appealing to altruism when summarizing the goals of research may increase research participation and does not necessarily violate voluntariness of informed consent. Additional research is needed to determine when information-processing biases occur problematically in health-related informed consent, and whether appealing to altruism increases research participation.
引用
收藏
页码:30 / 38
页数:9
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], HEALTH MATRIX
  • [2] Baumeister RF., 1994, LOSING CONTROL WHY P
  • [3] WHOSE UTILITIES FOR DECISION-ANALYSIS
    BOYD, NF
    SUTHERLAND, HJ
    HEASMAN, KZ
    TRITCHLER, DL
    CUMMINGS, BJ
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1990, 10 (01) : 58 - 67
  • [4] Informed decision making in outpatient practice - Time to get back to basics
    Braddock, CH
    Edwards, KA
    Hasenberg, NM
    Laidley, TL
    Levinson, W
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1999, 282 (24): : 2313 - 2320
  • [5] FRAMING BIAS AMONG EXPERT AND NOVICE PHYSICIANS
    CHRISTENSEN, C
    HECKERLING, PS
    MACKESY, ME
    BERNSTEIN, LM
    ELSTEIN, AS
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1991, 66 (09) : S76 - S78
  • [6] CLORE GL, 1992, CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL JUDGMENTS, P133
  • [7] Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty
    Cosmides, L
    Tooby, J
    [J]. COGNITION, 1996, 58 (01) : 1 - 73
  • [8] Dawes RM., 1988, RATIONAL CHOICE UNCE
  • [9] Heuristics and biases: Selected errors in clinical reasoning
    Elstein, AS
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1999, 74 (07) : 791 - 794
  • [10] FADEN RR, 1986, HIST THEORY INFORMED