Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by John, L. K.
Right arrow Articles by Fischhoff, B.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by John, L. K.
Right arrow Articles by Fischhoff, B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Changes of Heart: The Switch-Value Method for Assessing Value Uncertainty

Leslie K. John, MSc* and Baruch Fischhoff

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lkjohn{at}andrew.cmu.edu.


   Abstract
Background. Medical choices often evoke great value uncertainty, as patients face difficult, unfamiliar tradeoffs. Those seeking to aid such choices must be able to assess patients’ ability to reduce that uncertainty, to reach stable, informed choices. Objective. The authors demonstrate a new method for evaluating how well people have articulated their preferences for difficult health decisions. The method uses 2 evaluative criteria. One is internal consistency, across formally equivalent ways of posing a choice. The 2nd is compliance with principles of prospect theory, indicating sufficient task mastery to respond in predictable ways. Method. Subjects considered a hypothetical choice between noncurative surgery and palliative care, posed by a brain tumor. The choice options were characterized on 6 outcomes (e.g., pain, life expectancy, treatment risk), using a drug facts box display. After making an initial choice, subjects indicated their willingness to switch, given plausible changes in the outcomes. These changes involved either gains (improvements) in the unchosen option or losses (worsening) in the chosen one. A 2 x 2mixed design manipulated focal change (gains v. losses) within subjects and change order between subjects. Results. In this demonstration, subjects’ preferences were generally consistent 1) with one another: with similar percentages willing to switch for gains and losses, and 2) with prospect theory, requiring larger gains than losses, to make those switches. Conclusion. Informed consent requires understanding decisions well enough to articulate coherent references. The authors’ method allows assessing individuals’ success in doing so.

First published on October 14, 2009
Medical Decision Making 2009, doi:10.1177/0272989X09344750


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?