The expected utility framework underlies much research in medical decision making. Because the framework requires decisions to be decomposed into probabilities of states and the values of those states, researchers have investigated the two components separately from each other and from patients’ actual decisions. The authors propose that it would be productive to focus more research on the relationships among risk perceptions, outcome valuations, and choices in the same decision makers. They outline exploratory analyses based on two existing national surveys, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health.
KahnemanDTverskyA. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.
2.
McCafferyKDixonAHayenAJansenJSmithSSimpsonJ. The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: a randomized experimental study. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:532–44.
3.
BrewerNGilkeyMLillieSHesseBSheridanS. Tables or bar graphs? Presenting test results in electronic medical records. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:545–53.
4.
VersteeghMLeunisALuimeJBoggildMUyl–de GrootCStolkE. Mapping QLQ-C30, HAQ, and MSIS-29 on EQ-5D. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:554–68.
5.
Rand-HendriksenKAugestadLDahlFKristiansenIStavemK. A shortcut to mean-based time-tradeoff tariffs for the EQ-5D?Med Decis Making. 2012;32:569–77.
6.
DolanPMetcalfeR. Valuing health: a brief report on subjective wellbeing versus preferences. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:578–82.
7.
AttemaABleichrodtHWakkerP. A direct method measuring discounting and QALYs more easily and reliably. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:583–93.
8.
Feldman-StewartDTongCSiemensR. The impact of explicit values clarification exercises in a patient decision aid emerges after the decision is actually made: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:616–26.
9.
HowardDHuangY. Serious health events and discontinuation of routine cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:627–36.
10.
HarleCDownsJPadmanR. Effectiveness of personalized and interactive health risk calculators: a randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:594–605.
11.
VassyJO’BrienKWaxlerJ. Impact of literacy and numeracy on motivation for behavior change after diabetes genetic risk testing. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:606–15.
12.
HastieR. Problems for judgment and decision making. Ann Rev Psychol. 2001;52:653–83.
13.
WeberEUJohnsonEJ. Mindful judgment and decision making. Ann Rev Psychol. 2009;60:53–85.
14.
DhamiMKHertwigRHoffrageU. The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychol Bull. 2004;130(6):959–88.
15.
HaaseNBetschC. Parents trust other parents: lay vaccination narratives on the Web may create doubt about vaccination safety. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:645.
16.
LuceRDFishburnPC. Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first-order gambles. J Risk Uncertainty. 1991;4(1):29–59.
17.
TverskyAKahnemanD. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertainty. 1992;5(4):297–323.
18.
BirnbaumMHBahraJP. Gain-loss separability and coalescing in risky decision making. Manage Sci. 2007;53(6):1016–28.
19.
ChechileRCookeA. An experimental test of a general class of utility models: evidence for context dependency. J Risk Uncertainty. 1997;14(1):75–93.
20.
ChechileRALuceRD. Reanalysis of the Chechile-Cooke experiment: correcting for mismatched gambles. J Risk Uncertainty. 1999;18(3):321–25.
21.
ReynaV. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):850–65.
22.
LloydFReynaV. Clinical gist and medical education: connecting the dots. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1332.
23.
KingVDavisMGormanPRuggeJBFagnanLJ. Perceptions of shared decision making and decision aids among rural primary care clinicians. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:636–45.
24.
HozoIDjulbegovicB. Will insistence on practicing medicine according to expected utility theory lead to an increase in diagnostic testing?Mel Decis Making. 2009;29:320–22.
25.
LakoffGJohnsonM. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books;1999.
26.
SchoemakerPJH. Subjective expected utility theory revisited: a reductio ad absurdum paradox. Theory Decis. 1992;33(1):1–21.
27.
TetlockPEKristelOVElsonSBGreenMCLernerJS. The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78(5):853.
28.
SchwartzAHazenGLeiferAHeckerlingP. Life goals and health decisions: what will people live (or die) for?Med Decis Making. 2008;28(2):209–19.
29.
HazenGBSchwartzA. Incorporating extrinsic goals into decision and cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(5):580–9.
30.
SchwartzAHazenGBLeiferAHeckerlingPS. Development of goal-sensitive health-related utility assessment procedures. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(5):590–8.
31.
KahnemanD. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux; 2011.
32.
SullivanPWGhushchyanV. Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(4):401–9.
33.
FrybackD. Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life. Washington, DC: The National Academies, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; 2010.
34.
FrybackDGPaltaMCherepanovDBoltDKimJS. Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(1):5–15.
