Cargando…

Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning

BACKGROUND: We explore cognitive and behavioural biases that influence individual’s willingness to engage advance care planning (ACP). Because contexts for the initiation of ACP discussions can be so different, our objective in this study was to identify specific groups, particular preferences or un...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Whyte, Stephen, Rego, Joanna, Fai Chan, Ho, Chan, Raymond J., Yates, Patsy, Dulleck, Uwe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9021513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35462623
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26323524221092458
_version_ 1784689845446115328
author Whyte, Stephen
Rego, Joanna
Fai Chan, Ho
Chan, Raymond J.
Yates, Patsy
Dulleck, Uwe
author_facet Whyte, Stephen
Rego, Joanna
Fai Chan, Ho
Chan, Raymond J.
Yates, Patsy
Dulleck, Uwe
author_sort Whyte, Stephen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We explore cognitive and behavioural biases that influence individual’s willingness to engage advance care planning (ACP). Because contexts for the initiation of ACP discussions can be so different, our objective in this study was to identify specific groups, particular preferences or uniform behaviours, that may be prone to cognitive bias in the ACP decision process. METHOD: We collected data from the Australian general public (n = 1253), as well as general practitioners (GPs) and nurses (n = 117) including demographics, stated preference for ACP decision-making; six cognitive bias tests commonly used in Behavioural Economics; and a framing experiment in the context of ACP. RESULTS: Compared to GPs (M = 57.6 years, SD = 17.2) and the general public (58.1 years, SD = 14.56), nurses on average recommend ACP discussions with patients occur approximately 15 years earlier (M = 42.9 years, SD = 23.1; p < 0.0001 in both cases). There is a positive correlation between the age of the general population and the preferred age for the initial ACP discussion (ρ = 0.368, p < 0.001). Our shared decision-making analysis shows the mean share of doctor’s ACP input is viewed to be approximately 40% by the general public, significantly higher than health professionals (GPs and nurses), who believe doctors should only contribute approximately 20% input. The general public show varying relationships (all p < 0.05) for both first ACP discussion, and shared decision-making for five of six cognitive tests. However, for health professionals, only those who exhibit confirmation bias show differences (8.4% higher; p = 0.035) of patient’s input. Our framing experiment results show that positive versus negative framing can result in as much as 4.9–7.0% shift in preference for factors most relevant to ACP uptake. CONCLUSION: Understanding how GPs, nurses and patients perceive, engage and choose to communicate ACP and how specific groups, particular preferences or uniform behaviours, may be prone to cognitive bias in the decision process is of critical importance for increasing future uptake and efficient future healthcare provision.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9021513
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90215132022-04-22 Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning Whyte, Stephen Rego, Joanna Fai Chan, Ho Chan, Raymond J. Yates, Patsy Dulleck, Uwe Palliat Care Soc Pract Original Research BACKGROUND: We explore cognitive and behavioural biases that influence individual’s willingness to engage advance care planning (ACP). Because contexts for the initiation of ACP discussions can be so different, our objective in this study was to identify specific groups, particular preferences or uniform behaviours, that may be prone to cognitive bias in the ACP decision process. METHOD: We collected data from the Australian general public (n = 1253), as well as general practitioners (GPs) and nurses (n = 117) including demographics, stated preference for ACP decision-making; six cognitive bias tests commonly used in Behavioural Economics; and a framing experiment in the context of ACP. RESULTS: Compared to GPs (M = 57.6 years, SD = 17.2) and the general public (58.1 years, SD = 14.56), nurses on average recommend ACP discussions with patients occur approximately 15 years earlier (M = 42.9 years, SD = 23.1; p < 0.0001 in both cases). There is a positive correlation between the age of the general population and the preferred age for the initial ACP discussion (ρ = 0.368, p < 0.001). Our shared decision-making analysis shows the mean share of doctor’s ACP input is viewed to be approximately 40% by the general public, significantly higher than health professionals (GPs and nurses), who believe doctors should only contribute approximately 20% input. The general public show varying relationships (all p < 0.05) for both first ACP discussion, and shared decision-making for five of six cognitive tests. However, for health professionals, only those who exhibit confirmation bias show differences (8.4% higher; p = 0.035) of patient’s input. Our framing experiment results show that positive versus negative framing can result in as much as 4.9–7.0% shift in preference for factors most relevant to ACP uptake. CONCLUSION: Understanding how GPs, nurses and patients perceive, engage and choose to communicate ACP and how specific groups, particular preferences or uniform behaviours, may be prone to cognitive bias in the decision process is of critical importance for increasing future uptake and efficient future healthcare provision. SAGE Publications 2022-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9021513/ /pubmed/35462623 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26323524221092458 Text en © The Author(s), 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Whyte, Stephen
Rego, Joanna
Fai Chan, Ho
Chan, Raymond J.
Yates, Patsy
Dulleck, Uwe
Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning
title Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning
title_full Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning
title_fullStr Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning
title_full_unstemmed Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning
title_short Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning
title_sort cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9021513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35462623
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26323524221092458
work_keys_str_mv AT whytestephen cognitiveandbehaviouralbiasinadvancecareplanning
AT regojoanna cognitiveandbehaviouralbiasinadvancecareplanning
AT faichanho cognitiveandbehaviouralbiasinadvancecareplanning
AT chanraymondj cognitiveandbehaviouralbiasinadvancecareplanning
AT yatespatsy cognitiveandbehaviouralbiasinadvancecareplanning
AT dulleckuwe cognitiveandbehaviouralbiasinadvancecareplanning