A problem for achieving informed choice

Article

Abstract

Most agree that, if all else is equal, patients should be provided with enough information about proposed medical therapies to allow them to make an informed decision about what, if anything, they wish to receive. This is the principle of informed choice; it is closely related to the notion of informed consent. Contemporary clinical trials are analysed according to classical statistics. This paper puts forward the argument that classical statistics does not provide the right sort of information for informing choice. The notion of probability used by classical statistics is complex and difficult to communicate. Therapeutic decisions are best informed by statistical approaches that assign probabilities to hypotheses about the benefits and harms of therapies. Bayesian approaches to statistical inference provide such probabilities.

Keywords

Classical statistics Bayesian statistics Informed choice Informed consent Randomised controlled trials 

References

  1. 1.
    Elwyn, G., A. Edwards, P. Kinnersley, and R. Grol. 2000. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: The competencies of involving patients in healthcare choices. British Journal of General Practice 50(460): 892–899.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Savulescu, J., and R.W. Momeyer. 1997. Should informed consent be based on rational beliefs? Journal of Medical Ethics 23(5): 282–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157): 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epstein, R.M., B.S. Alper, and T.E. Quill. 2004. Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. Journal of American Medical Association 291(19): 2359–2366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Medical Association. 1964 (Last updated 2004). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm. Accessed 4 June 2008.
  6. 6.
    Doyal, L. 2001. Informed consent: Moral necessity or illusion? Quality in Health Care 10(supplement I): i29–i33.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kottow, M. 2004. The battering of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 30(6): 565–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ford, S., T. Schofield, and T. Hope. 2003. What are the ingredients for a successful evidence based patient choice consultation? A qualitative study. Social Science & Medicine 56: 589–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Man-Son-Hing, M., A. Laupacis, A. O’Connor, J. Biggs, E. Drake, E. Yetisir, and R. Hart. 1999. A patient decision aid regarding antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of American Medical Association 282(8): 737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edwards, A., and G. Elwyn. 2001. Understanding risk and lessons for clinical communication about treatment preferences. Quality in Health Care 10(supplement I): i9–i13.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Col, N.F., G. Weber, A. Stiggelbout, J. Chuo, R. D’Agostino, and P. Corso. 2004. Short-term menopausal hormone therapy for symptom relief: An updated decision model. Archives of Internal Medicine 164: 1634–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edwards, A., G. Elwyn, and A. Mulley. 2002. Explaining risks: Turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. British Medical Journal 324(7341): 827–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ware, J.H., F. Mosteller, F. Delgado, C. Donnelly, and J.A. Ingelfinger. 1992. P values. In Medical uses of statistics, ed. John C. Bailar III and Frederick Mosteller, 181–200. Boston: NEJM Books.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. 1994. Risk factors for stroke and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation. Archives of Internal Medicine 154: 1449–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The SPAF III Writing Committee for the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. 1998. Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at low risk of stroke during treatment with aspirin. Journal of the American Medical Association 279: 1273–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Home, P.D., S.J. Pocock, H. Beck-Nielsen, R. Gomis, M. Hanefeld, N.P. Jones, M. Komajda, J.J.V. McMurray, and The Record Study Group. 2007. Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes—an interim analysis. New England Journal of Medicine 357(1): 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drazen, J.M., S. Morrissey, and G.D. Curfman. 2007. Rosiglitazone—continued uncertainty about safety. New England Journal of Medicine 357(1): 63–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berry, D.A. 2006. Bayesian clinical trials. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5(1): 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poole, C. 2001. Low p-values or narrow confidence intervals: Which are more durable? Epidemiology 12(3): 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Young, J.M., P. Glasziou, and J.E. Ward. 2002. General practitioners’ self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. British Medical Journal 324(7343): 950–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berger, J.O., and T. Sellke. 1987. Testing a point null hypothesis: The irreconcilability of p-values and evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82(397): 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department, Main QuadUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations