Fetal therapy choices

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511997778.007

Chapter 5 - Fetal therapy choices

About risks, emotions, and the doctor’s role in the decision-making process

from Section 1 - General principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2013

Danielle R. M. Timmermans

Edited by

Mark D. Kilby ,

Anthony Johnson and

Dick Oepkes

Show author details

Mark D. Kilby: Affiliation:
Department of Fetal Medicine, University of Birmingham
Anthony Johnson: Affiliation:
Baylor College of Medicine, Texas
Dick Oepkes: Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Center

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Making good decisions prospectively is difficult. Especially when it is the perception that the stakes are high. There is often uncertainty regarding prognosis and emotions prevail both between a couple and in the interactions with their healthcare professional team. This is the case when parents have to decide about fetal therapy for congenital malformations and the health of their unborn child. Parents usually are unprepared for the often rare disease the fetus is found to have. Still in a state of shock, they receive a lot of detailed and difficult information, and need to decide on whether or not to choose the option of fetal therapy (which often carries risks of perinatal death or preterm birth as complications), expectant management, or sometimes the very difficult option of termination of pregnancy. The obstetrician or fetal medicine specialist aims to provide the parents with all the relevant factual information and to support them in their decision process.

How do parents make these decisions? Are they able to process and understand this information? Do they comprehend the communicated risks and how do they incorporate the risks into their decision-making? How do emotions affect their decision-making? What is the role of physicians in facilitating this process and how can they guide the parents in this difficult decision-making process? How should they provide information about the malformations and the pros and cons of the different treatment options? These are the questions that are dealt with in this chapter. A better understanding of the decision process and parents and the role of physicians in facilitating this process is a prerequisite for being able to improve the quality of care in this respect.

Keywords

fetal therapy fetal lung anomalies risk information emotional state decision-making process doctor's support

Type: Chapter
Information: Fetal Therapy
Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits
, pp. 45 - 54

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511997778.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Shapiro, DE, Boggs, SR, Melamed, BG, Graham-Pole, J. The effect of varied physician affect on recall, anxiety, and perceptions in women at risk for breast cancer: an analogue study. Health Psychol 1992;11:61–6.Google Scholar

Kessels, PC. Patients’ memory for medical information. J R Soc Med 2003;96:219–22.Google Scholar

Baron, J. Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Marois, R, Ivanoff, J. Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends Cogn Sci 2005;9:296–305.Google Scholar

Miller, GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 1956;63:81–97.Google Scholar

Simon, H. Rational decision making in business organizations. Am Econ Rev 1979;69:493–513.Google Scholar

Timmermans, DRM. Bounded rationality and emotions. In: Kattan, MW, ed. Encyclopedia of Medical Decision Making. London: Sage Publications. 2009; 98–101.

(accessed September 2012).

Williams, MV, Davis, T, Parker, RM, Weiss, BD. The role of health literacy in patient-physician communication. Fam Med 2002;34:383–9.Google Scholar

Peters, E, Västfjäll, D, Slovic, P, et al. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci 2006;17:407–13.Google Scholar

Tiedens, LZ, Linton, S. Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001;81:973–88.Google Scholar

Evans, JS. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 2008;59:255–78.Google Scholar

Gilovich, T, Griffin, D, Kahneman, D. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Schwartz, N, Clore, GL. Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychol Inquiry 2003;14:296–303.Google Scholar

Loewenstein, G, Lerner, JS. The role of affect in decision making. In: Davidson, RJ, Scherer, KR, Goldsmith, HH, eds. Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford, New York. Oxford University Press. 2003; 619–42.

Van den Berg, M, Timmermans, DRM, Knol, D, et al. Understanding pregnant women’s decision making concerning prenatal screening. Health Psychol 2008;27:430–7.Google Scholar

Lippman-Hand, A, Fraser, FC. Genetic counseling: provision and reception of information. Am J Med Genet 1979;3:113–27.Google Scholar

Wang, XT. Emotions with reason: resolving conflicts in risk preference. Cogn Emotion 2006;20:1132–52.Google Scholar

Godolphin, W. Shared decision making. Healthc Q 2009;12(Sp):e186–e90. .Google Scholar

Edwards, A. Elwyn, G, eds. Shared Decision Making in Health Care, 2nd edn. Oxford, England, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Charles, C, Gafni, A, Whelan, T. Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:651–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

Elwyn, G, Laitner, S, Coulter, A, et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ 2010;341:c5146.Google Scholar

Elwyn, G, Edwards, A, Britten, N. “Doing prescribing”: how doctors can be more effective. BMJ 2003;327:864–7.Google Scholar

(accessed September 2012).

O’Connor, A, Bennett, C, Stacey, D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;3:CD001431.Google Scholar

Timmermans, DRM, Oudhoff, J. Different formats for the communication of risks: verbal, numerical, and graphical formats. In: Cochran, JJ ed. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons. 2010; DOI: .

Timmermans, DRM. The role of experience and domain of expertise in using numerical and verbal probability terms in medical decisions. Med Decis Making 1994;14:146–56.Google Scholar

Gurmankin, AD, Baron, J, Armstrong, K. The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making 2004;24:265–71.Google Scholar

Wallsten, TS, Budescu, DV, Zwick, R, Kemp, SM. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bull Psychon Soc 1993;31:135–8.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G, Gassmaier, W, Kurz-Milke, E et al. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2007;8:53–96.Google Scholar

Slovic, P, Monahan, J, MacGregor, DG. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Hum Behav 2000;24:271–96.Google Scholar

Lipkus, IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007;27:696–713.Google Scholar

Timmermans, D, Molewijk, B, Stiggelbout, A, et al. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Educ Couns 2004;54:255–63.Google Scholar

Galesic, M, Garcia-Retamero, R, Gigerenzer, G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol 2009;28:210–16.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B, Slovic, P, Lichtenstein, S. Knowing what you want: measuring labile values. In: Wallsten, TS, ed. Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1980; 117–41.

Montgomery, AA, Fahey, T. How do patients’ treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? Qual Health Care 2001;10(Suppl I):i39–43.Google Scholar

Stiggelbout, AM, De Haes, JCJM. Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:220–30.Google Scholar

Wilson, T. Strangers to Ourselves. Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2002.

Robinson, A, Thomson, R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care 2001;10(Suppl I):i34–8.Google Scholar

Gibb, A, Entwistle, V. Shared decision making: trade-offs between narrower and broader conceptions. Health Expectations 2011;14:210–19.Google Scholar

Dijksterhuis, A. On making the right choice: the deliberation without attention effect. Science 2006; 311:1005–7.Google Scholar

Book contents

Chapter 5 - Fetal therapy choices

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive