Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 451–467 | Cite as

Helping patients and physicians reach individualized medical decisions: theory and application to prenatal diagnostic testing

  • Edi KarniEmail author
  • Moshe Leshno
  • Sivan Rapaport
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a procedure designed to aid physicians and patients in the process of making medical decisions, and illustrates its implementation to aid pregnant women, who decided to undergo prenatal diagnostic test choose a physician to administer it. The procedure is based on a medical decision-making model of Karni (J Risk Uncertain 39: 1–16, 2009). This model accommodates the possibility that the decision maker’s risk attitudes may vary with her state of health and incorporates other costs, such as pain and inconvenience, associated with alternative treatments. The medical decision problem was chosen for its relative simplicity and the transparency it affords.

Keywords

Medical decision making Prenatal diagnostic testing  CVS Amniocentesis 

JEL Classification

I19 D81 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Peter Wakker for his useful comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

11238_2013_9379_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (141 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 141 KB)

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M., Carolina, B., & Wakker, P. P. (2007). Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory. Journal of Econometrics, 138, 356–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997). Shared decision-making in medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine, 44, 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1999a). Waht do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? British Medical Journal, 319, 780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1999b). Decision-making in physicain–patient encounter: Revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Social Science and Medicine, 49, 651–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Holmes-Rovner, M., Nelson, W., Pignone, M., et al. (2007). Are patient decision aids the best way to improve clinical decision making? Report of the IPDAS symposium. Medical Decision Making, 27, 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holt, Charles A., & Laury, K. Susan. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hudak, P. L., Frankel, R. M., Braddock, C, Iii, et al. (2008). Do patients’ communication behaviors provide insight into their preferences for participation in decision making? Medical Decision Making, 28, 385.Google Scholar
  8. Karni, Edi. (2009). A theory of medical decision making under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kremer, H., Ironson, G., Schneiderman, N., & Hautzinger, M. (2007). “It’s My Body” : Does patient involvement in decision making reduce decisional conflict? Medical Decision Making, 27, 522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. A., Eysenbach, G., Kukla, R., Stavri, P. Z., & Jimison, H. (Eds.). (2005). Consumer health informatics: Informing consumers and improving health care. Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Saha, Atanu. (1993). Expo-power utility: A flexible form for absolute and relative risk aversion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 905–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Savage, Leonard J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Wijnberger, L. D. E., van der Schouw, Y. T., & Christiaens, G. (2000). Learning in medicine: Chorionic villus sampling. Prenatal Diagnosis, 20, 6–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of ManagementTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Columbia Business SchoolColumbia UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations