Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Bekker, HL; Winterbottom, AE; Butow, P; Dillard, A; Feldman-Stewart, D; Fowler, FJ; Jibaja-Weiss, M; Shaffer, V; Volk, RJ (2013)
Publisher: Biomed Central
Languages: English
Types: Article
Background: Patient decision aids support people to make informed decisions between healthcare options. Personal stories provide illustrative examples of others’ experiences and are seen as a useful way to communicate information about health and illness. Evidence indicates that providing information within personal stories affects the judgments and values people have, and the choices they make, differentially from facts presented in nonnarrative prose. It is unclear if including narrative communications within patient decision aids enhances their effectiveness to support people to make informed decisions. Methods: A survey of primary empirical research employing a systematic review method investigated the effect of patient decision aids with or without a personal story on people’s healthcare judgements and decisions. Searches were carried out between 2005-2012 of electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO), and reference lists of identified articles, review articles, and key authors. A narrative analysis described and synthesised findings. Results: Of 734 citations identified, 11 were included describing 13 studies. All studies found participants’ judgments and/or decisions differed depending on whether or not their decision aid included a patient story. Knowledge was equally facilitated when the decision aids with and without stories had similar information content. Story-enhanced aids may help people recall information over time and/or their motivation to engage with health information. Personal stories affected both “system 1” (e.g., less counterfactual reasoning, more emotional reactions and perceptions) and “system 2” (e.g., more perceived deliberative decision making, more stable evaluations over time) decision-making strategies. Findings exploring associations with narrative communications, decision quality measures, and different levels of literacy and numeracy were mixed. The pattern of findings was similar for both experimental and real-world studies. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence that adding personal stories to decision aids increases their effectiveness to support people’s informed decision making. More rigorous research is required to elicit evidence about the type of personal story that a) encourages people to make more reasoned decisions, b) discourages people from making choices based on another’s values, and c) motivates people equally to engage with healthcare resources.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2011, 10, Art. No.: CD001431. DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD001431.pub3.
    • 2. Bekker HL: The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: do checklists affect the validity of informed choice interventions? Patient Educ Couns 2010, 78:357-364.
    • 3. Sepucha K, Thomson R, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, Levin CA, Matlock DD, Ng CJ, Ropka M, Stacey D, Joseph-Williams N, Wills CE: Establishing effectiveness. In 2012 Update of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration's background document. Chapter L Volk R & Llewellyn-Thomas H 2012 [http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html].
    • 4. Winterbottom AE, Bekker HL, Conner MT, Mooney A: Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2008, 67(12):2079-2088.
    • 5. Butow P, Fowler J, Ziebland S: Section 5: Using Personal Stories. In IPDAS International Collaboration Document A O'Connor, Llewellyn-Thomas, H. & Stacey, D 2005, Retrieved from http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html (Accessed on 01/01/2010).
    • 6. Murray M: Chapter 6. Narrative psychology and narrative analysis. In Qualitative research in psychology: expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Association;Camic PM, Rhodes JE, Yardley L 2003:.
    • 7. Greenhalgh T, Hurwitz B: Narrative based medicine: Why study narrative. BMJ 1999, 318:48-50.
    • 8. Hyden L-C: Illness and narrative. Sociol Health and Illn 1997, 19:48-69.
    • 9. Bury M: Illness narratives: fact or fiction? Sociol Health and Illn 2001, 23:263-285.
    • 10. Khangura S, Bennett C, Stacey D, O'Connor AM: Personal stories in publicly available patient decision aids. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 73:456-464.
    • 11. Butow PN, Kirsten LT, Ussher JM, Wain GV, Sandoval M, Hobbs K, Hodgkinson K, Stenlake A: What is the ideal support group? Views of Australian people with cancer and their carers. Psychooncology 2007, 16(11):1039-1045.
    • 12. Morton RL, Howard K, Webster AC, Snelling P: Patient Information about Options for Treatment (PINOT): a prospective national study of information given to incident CKD stage 5 patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011, 26:1266-1274.
    • 13. Entwistle VA, France EF, Wyke S, Jepson R, Hunt K, Ziebland S, Thompson A: How information about other people's personal experiences can help with healthcare decision-making: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns 2011, 85(3):e291-8.
    • 14. Hinyard LJ, Kreuter MW: Using narratives communication as a tool for health behaviour change: a conceptual, theoretical and empirical overview. Health Educ Behav 2007, 34:777-792.
    • 15. Bandura A: Chapter 6: Social cognitive theory. In Annals of child development: Six theories of child development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press;Vasta R 1989:1-60.
    • 16. Shaffer VA, Zikmund-Fisher BJ: All stories are not alike: A purpose-, content-, and valence-based taxonomy of patient narratives in decision aids. Med Decis Making 2013, 33:4-13.
    • 17. Wise M, Yeob Han J, Shaw B, Mctavish F, Gustafson DH: Effects of using online narrative and didactic information on healthcare participation for breast cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 70:348-356.
    • 18. Volk RJ, Jibaba-Weiss ML, Hawley ST, Kneuper S, Spann SJ, Miles BJ, Hyman DJ: Entertainment education for prostate cancer screening: a randomized trial among primary care patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 73:482-489.
    • 19. Kreuter MW, Holmes K, Alcaraz K: Comparing narrative and informational videos to increase mammography in low-income African American women. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 81:S6-S14.
    • 20. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ: Utilizing Computerized Entertainment Education in the Development of Decision Aids for Lower Literate and Naïve Computer Users'. J Health Commun 2007, 12:681-697.
    • 21. Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J: The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: Effects on treatment choice. Med Decis Making 2001, 21(1):60-68.
    • 22. Kahneman D, Frederick S: Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press;Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman 2002:49-81.
    • 23. Stanovich KE: Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Psychology Press; 1999.
    • 24. Slovic P, Peters E: Risk Perception and Affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2006, 15:322-5.
    • 25. Chaiken S, Maheswaran D: Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994, 66:460-473.
    • 26. Habermas T, Diel V: The Emotional Impact of Loss Narratives: Event Severity and Narrative Perspectives. Emotion 2010, 10(3):312-323.
    • 27. Ito TA, Larsen JT, Smith NK, Cacioppo JT: Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998, 75(4):887-900.
    • 28. Dillard AJ, Fagerlin A, Zigmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA: Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Soc Sci Med 2010, 71:45-52.
    • 29. Loewenstein G: Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision-making. Health Psychol 2005, 24(Suppl.4):S49-S56.
    • 30. Sherif M, Hovland CI: Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1961.
    • 31. Festinger L: A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 1954, 7:117-40.
    • 32. McClelland AGR, Pring L: Implicit and explicit memory: On the representation of information in the memory system. Meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society, Reading 1988.
    • 33. Mandler JM, Johnson NS: Remembrance of things parsed: story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychol 1977, 9:111-51.
    • 34. Schank RC, Berman TR: The pervasive role of stories in knowledge and action. In Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum;Green MC, Strange JJ, Brock TC 2002:287-313.
    • 35. Petty RE, Cacioppo J: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; Berkowitz L 1986:123-205.
    • 36. Price V, Czilli EJ: Modeling patterns of news recognition and recall. J Commun 1996, 46(2):55-78.
    • 37. Sanfrey A, Hastie R: Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments. Psychol Sci 1998, 9(2):99-103.
    • 38. Connor M, Norman P: Predicting health behaviour: research and practice with social cognition models. Buckingham, UK, Open University Press;, 2 2005.
    • 39. Green MC, Brock TC: The role of transformational in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Pers SocPsychol 2000, 79:701-721.
    • 40. de Wit JBF, Das E, Vet R: What works best: objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychol 2008, 27:110-115.
    • 41. Betsch C, Ulshofer C, Renkewitz F, Betsch T: The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Med Decis Making 2011, 31:742-753.
    • 42. Feldman-Stewart D, Brennenstuh S, McIssac K: A systematic review of information in decision aids. Health Expectations 2006, 10:46-61.
    • 43. Clement S, Ibrahim S, Crichton N, Wolf M, Rowlands G: Complex interventions to improve the health of people with limited literacy: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 75:340-351.
    • 44. Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA: Reducing the influence of anaecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making 2005, 25:398-405.
    • 45. Shaffer VA, Tomek S, Hulsey L: The effect of narrative information in a publicly available patient decision aid for early-stage breast cancer. Health Commun 2013, Feb 5. [epub ahead of print].
    • 46. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Granchi TS: Entertainment education for breast cancer surgery decisions: A randomized trial among patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns 2011, 84:41-8.
    • 47. Winterbottom AE, Bekker HL, Conner M, Mooney A: Patient stories about their dialysis experience biases others' choices regardless of doctor's advice: an experimental study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011, 27(1):325-331.
    • 48. Volandes AE, Paasche-Orlow MK, Barry MJ, Gillick MR, Minaker KL, Chang Y, Cook EF, Abbo ED, El-Jawahri A, Mitchell SL: Video decision support tool for advance care planning in dementia: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009, 338:b2159.
    • 49. Volandes AE, Mitchell SL, Gillick MR, Chang Y, Paasche-Orlow MK: Using video images to improve the accuracy of surrogate decision making: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2009, 10:575-580.
    • 50. Volandes AE, Ferguson LA, Davis AD, Hull NC, Green MJ, Chang Y, Deep K, Paasche-Orlow MK: Assessing End-of-Life Preferences for Advanced Dementia in Rural Patients Using an Educational Video: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Palliat Med 2011, 14(2):169-177.
    • 51. El-Jawahri A, Podgurski LM, Eichler AF, Plotkin SR, Temel JS, Mitchell SL, Chang Y, Barry MJ, Volandes AE: Use of video to facilitate end-of-life discussions with patients with cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:305-311.
    • 52. Vaughan PW, Rogers EM: A staged model of communication effects: evidence from an entertainment-education radio soap opera in Tanzania. J Health Commun 2000, 5:203-227.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article