HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rakow, T Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rakow, T

Differences in belief about likely outcomes account for differences in doctors' treatment preferences: but what accounts for the differences in belief?

Clinical Risk Unit, Department of Psychology, University College, London WC1E 6BT, UK

Dr T Rakow, Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex CO4 3 SQ, UK timrakow{at}essex.ac.uk Abstract

Doctors, patients, and their relatives face a complex decision when there are multiple treatment options that differ in their profiles of risk and benefit over time. Doctors from a single specialist paediatric cardiac unit participated in a correlational study that used a novel tool (subjective multi-state survival graphs) to elicit their beliefs about the likely outcome of different treatments. Doctors' preferences were more closely related to their beliefs about long term, rather than short term, outcomes. This is consistent with placing greater value on far future than on immediate life years, highlighting the importance of incorporating patients' values for these outcomes into decisions of this kind. Beliefs about likely outcomes differed with whether or not doctors encountered former paediatric patients who were now adults, illustrating the difficulty of deciding what risk information should be available when the evidence base on outcomes is limited. Some problems of risk communication are identified, and the value of multi-state survival graphs as an aid to communication is discussed.

Key Words: doctor preference; risk; informed choice; decision making; patient-caregiver communication