The decision evaluation scales

There are several instruments to assess how patients evaluate their medical treatment choice. These are used to evaluate decision aids. Our objective is to investigate which psychological factors play a role when patients evaluate their medical treatment choices. A pool of 36 items was constructed, covering concepts such as uncertainty about and satisfaction with the decision, informed choice, effective decision making, responsibility for the decision, perceived riskiness of the choice, and social support regarding the decision. This pool was presented to patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer, awaiting a genetic test result, and facing the choice between prophylactic surgery or screening. Additional measures were assessed for validation purposes. Factor and Rasch analyses were used for factor and item selection. Construct validity of emerging scales was assessed by relating them with the additional measures. Three factors suminarised the psychological factors concerning decision evaluation: Satisfaction-Uncertainty, Informed Choice, and Decision Control. Reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha) of the three scales were 0.79, 0.85, and 0.75, respectively. Construct validity hypotheses were confirmed. The first two scales were similar to previously developed scales. Of these three scales, the Decision Control scale correlated most strongly with the well-being measures, was associated with partner's agreement and physician's preferences as perceived by patients, and with a negative emotional reaction to the information material. In conclusion, the Decision Control scale is a new scale to evaluate decision aids, and it appears to be rooted in health psychological theories. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.</p

Risk-taking attitudes and their association with process and outcomes of cardiac care: a cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prior research reveals that processes and outcomes of cardiac care differ across sociodemographic strata. One potential contributing factor to such differences is the personality traits of individuals within these strata. We examined the association between risk-taking attitudes and cardiac patients' clinical and demographic characteristics, the likelihood of undergoing invasive cardiac procedures and survival.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied a large inception cohort of patients who underwent cardiac catheterization between July 1998 and December 2001. Detailed clinical and demographic data were collected at time of cardiac catheterization and through a mailed survey one year post-catheterization. The survey included three general risk attitude items from the Jackson Personality Inventory. Patients' (n = 6294) attitudes toward risk were categorized as risk-prone versus non-risk-prone and were assessed for associations with baseline clinical and demographic characteristics, treatment received (i.e., medical therapy, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)), and survival (to December 2005).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>2827 patients (45%) were categorized as risk-prone. Having risk-prone attitudes was associated with younger age (p < .001), male sex (p < .001), current smoking (p < .001) and higher household income (p < .001). Risk-prone patients were more likely to have CABG surgery in unadjusted (Odds Ratio [OR] = 1.21; 95% CI 1.08–1.36) and adjusted (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 1.02–1.36) models, but were no more likely to have PCI or any revascularization. Having risk-prone attitudes was associated with better survival in an unadjusted survival analysis (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.78 (95% CI 0.66–0.93), but not in a risk-adjusted analysis (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.77–1.10).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These exploratory findings suggest that patient attitudes toward risk taking may <b>contribute to </b>some of the documented differences in use of invasive cardiac procedures. An awareness of these associations could help healthcare providers as they counsel patients regarding cardiac care decisions.</p