Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning

Author:

Whyte Stephen123ORCID,Rego Joanna4,Fai Chan Ho52,Chan Raymond J.67,Yates Patsy4,Dulleck Uwe528

Affiliation:

1. School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia

2. Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology (BEST), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia

3. Centre in Regenerative Medicine, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia

4. Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia

5. School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia

6. Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia

7. Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, School of Nursing, and Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

8. ARC Training Centre for Cell and Tissue Engineering Technologies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Abstract

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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Advanced and Specialized Nursing

Reference24 articles.

1. Difficult but necessary conversations — the case for advance care planning

2. Facilitating better end‐of‐life care

3. A perfect storm: fear of litigation for end of life care

4. Schuldt V. Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2019. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1920/Quick_Guides/RoyalCommissionAgedCare

5. The effects of advance care planning on end-of-life care: A systematic review

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3