Zikmund-FisherBJ, CouperMP, SingerE.The DECISIONS study: a nationwide survey of United States adults regarding 9 common medical decisions. Med Decis Making.2010; 30 (5): 20S–34S.
2.
SepuchaKR, FagerlinA, CouperMP.How does feeling informed relate to being informed? The DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making.2010; 30 (5): 77S–84S.
3.
HoffmanRM, LewisCL, PignoneMP.Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making.2010; 30 (5): 53S–64S.
4.
GwynR, ElwynG, EdwardsA, MooneyA.The problematic of decision-sharing: deconstructing ‘cholesterol’ in a clinical encounter. Health Expect.2003; 6 (3): 242–54.
5.
MazurDJ, HickamDH, MazurMD, MazurMD.The role of doctor's opinion in shared decision making: what does shared decision making really mean when considering invasive medical procedures?Health Expect.2005; 8(2):97–102.
6.
MazurDJ, HickamDH, MazurMD.How patients’ preferences for risk information influence treatment choice in a case of high risk and high therapeutic uncertainty: asymptomatic localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Making.1999; 19 (4): 394–8.
7.
GriffithJM, LewisCL, HawleyS, SheridanSL, PignoneMP.Randomized trial of presenting absolute v. relative risk reduction in the elicitation of patient values for heart disease prevention with conjoint analysis. Med Decis Making.2009; 29 (2): 167–74.
8.
GurmankinAD, BaronJ, ArmstrongK.The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making.2004; 24 (3): 265–71.
9.
EdwardsA, ElwynG.Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect.2006; 9 (4): 307–20.
10.
FagerlinA, SepuchaKR, CouperMP.Patients’ knowledge about 9 common health conditions: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making.2010; 30 (5): 35S–52S.
11.
ReynaVF, NelsonWL, HanPK, DieckmannNF.How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull.2009; 135 (6): 943–73.
12.
Zikmund-FisherBJ, FagerlinA, UbelPA.“Is 28% good or bad?” Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Med Decis Making.2004; 24 (2): 142–8.
13.
TverskyA, KahnemanD.Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science.1974; 185 (4157): 1124–31.
14.
GoldsteinDG, GigerenzerG.Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychol Rev.2002; 109 (1): 75–90.
15.
HseeCK.The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.1996; 67 (3): 247–57.
16.
GigerenzerG, GaissmaierW, Kurz-MilckeE, SchwartzLM, WoloshinS.Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.2008; 8 (2): 53–96.
17.
ReynaVF.A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making.2008; 28 (6): 850–65.
18.
DillardAJ, CouperMP, Zikmund-FisherBJ.Perceived risk of cancer and patient reports of participation in decisions about screening: the DECISIONS study. Med Decis Making.2010; 30 (5): 96S–105S.
19.
MadjarI, DenhamJ, RashidP.Do women have a role in early detection of prostate cancer? Lessons from a qualitative study. Aust Fam Physician.2007; 36 (5): 375–7.
20.
MeiserB, CowanR, CostelloA, GilesGG, LindemanGJ, GaffCL.Prostate cancer screening in men with a family history of prostate cancer: the role of partners in influencing men's screening uptake. Urology.2007; 70 (4): 738–42.
21.
FishbeinM.A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Med Decis Making.2008; 28 (6): 834–44.
