ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2013
On the suitability of fast and frugal heuristics for designing values clarification methods in patient decision aids: a critical analysis.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does a decision aid for prostate cancer affect different aspects of decisional regret, assessed with new regret scales? A randomized, controlled trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016Trial
- Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Trial
- Psychological value theory: predicting health-seeking behavior from symptom perception.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- There are some big changes in Health Expectations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasingly, patient decision aids and values clarification methods (VCMs) are being developed to support patients in making preference-sensitive health-care decisions. Many VCMs encourage extensive deliberation about options, without solid theoretical or empirical evidence showing that deliberation is advantageous. Research suggests that simple, fast and frugal heuristic decision strategies sometimes result in better judgments and decisions. Durand et al. have developed two fast and frugal heuristic-based VCMs.
objectiveTo critically analyse the suitability of the 'take the best' (TTB) and 'tallying' fast and frugal heuristics in the context of patient decision making. STRATEGY: Analysis of the structural similarities between the environments in which the TTB and tallying heuristics have been proven successful and the context of patient decision making and of the potential of these heuristic decision processes to support patient decision making.
conclusionThe specific nature of patient preference-sensitive decision making does not seem to resemble environments in which the TTB and tallying heuristics have proven successful. Encouraging patients to consider less rather than more relevant information potentially even deteriorates their values clarification process. Values clarification methods promoting the use of more intuitive decision strategies may sometimes be more effective. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend further theoretical thinking about the expected value of such heuristics and of other more intuitive decision strategies in this context, as well as empirical assessments of the mechanisms by which inducing such decision strategies may impact the quality and outcome of values clarification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.