Design and usability of heuristic-based deliberation tools for women facing amniocentesis.
BACKGROUND
Evidence suggests that in decision contexts characterized by uncertainty and time constraints (e.g. health-care decisions), fast and frugal decision-making strategies (heuristics) may perform better than complex rules of reasoning.


OBJECTIVE
To examine whether it is possible to design deliberation components in decision support interventions using simple models (fast and frugal heuristics).


METHODS
The 'Take The Best' heuristic (i.e. selection of a 'most important reason') and 'The Tallying' integration algorithm (i.e. unitary weighing of pros and cons) were used to develop two deliberation components embedded in a Web-based decision support intervention for women facing amniocentesis testing. Ten researchers (recruited from 15), nine health-care providers (recruited from 28) and ten pregnant women (recruited from 14) who had recently been offered amniocentesis testing appraised evolving versions of 'your most important reason' (Take The Best) and 'weighing it up' (Tallying).


RESULTS
Most researchers found the tools useful in facilitating decision making although emphasized the need for simple instructions and clear layouts. Health-care providers however expressed concerns regarding the usability and clarity of the tools. By contrast, 7 out of 10 pregnant women found the tools useful in weighing up the pros and cons of each option, helpful in structuring and clarifying their thoughts and visualizing their decision efforts. Several pregnant women felt that 'weighing it up' and 'your most important reason' were not appropriate when facing such a difficult and emotional decision.


CONCLUSIONS
Theoretical approaches based on fast and frugal heuristics can be used to develop deliberation tools that provide helpful support to patients facing real-world decisions about amniocentesis.
NHS Direct, London, UK.
Marie-Anne
MA
Durand
Odette
O
Wegwarth
Jacky
J
Boivin
Glyn
G
Elwyn
D000328:Adult; D000649:Amniocentesis / Q000523:psychology*; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D010358:Patient Participation; D011247:Pregnancy; D011296:Prenatal Diagnosis; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D006113:United Kingdom; D014584:User-Computer Interface
Med Decis Making. 2002 Mar-Apr;22(2):125-39
11958495
J Med Internet Res. 2007 Jul 13;9(3):e21
17627930
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2008;23(3):217-21
18417981
Prenat Diagn. 2008 Dec;28(13):1183-203
19097031
BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):114-6
10625273
Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(1):1-156
10350446
Health Expect. 2010 Jun;13(2):125-38
20536536
Psychol Rev. 1996 Oct;103(4):650-69
8888650
Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):554-74
17873255
Med Care. 2000 Oct;38(10):1040-50
11021677
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002 Mar;8(1):6-16
12009178
Med Decis Making. 2000 Jan-Mar;20(1):112-27
10638544
Hum Reprod Update. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):659-68
18772266
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Feb;82(2):260-5
20627644
Int J Nurs Stud. 2007 Sep;44(7):1109-19
16806220
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002 Oct;156(10):1005-8
12361446
Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Mar;56(3):302-12
15721973
BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417
16908462
Psychol Rev. 2002 Jul;109(3):472-91
12088241
Lancet. 1986 Jun 7;1(8493):1287-93
2423826
Med Care. 1995 Sep;33(9):922-37
7666706
Science. 2006 Feb 17;311(5763):1005-7
16484496
Am J Public Health. 1999 Nov;89(11):1649-57
10553384
Ann Behav Med. 2006 Dec;32(3):202-10
17107292
AIDS Educ Prev. 1993 Winter;5(4):294-301
8297709
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Apr;71(1):125-35
18242040
Psychol Rev. 2008 Jan;115(1):199-213
18211192
Health Expect. 1999 Mar;2(1):21-32
11281872
N Engl J Med. 1984 May 17;310(20):1273-8
6371525
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001 Jul;6(3):170-82
11467275
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Aug;8(33):iii, ix-x, 1-109
15298822
J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Aug;17(4):565-74
20698918
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008 Jan;3(1):20-9
26158666
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997 Dec;65(6):950-8
9420356
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Feb;60(2):181-92
2016668
J Neurosci Nurs. 1995 Apr;27(2):124-8
7622950