Health Decision Making: Lynchpin of Evidence-Based Practice
Open accessAbstract
Health decision making is both the lynchpin and the least developed aspect of evidence-based practice. The evidence-based practice process requires integrating the evidence with consideration of practical resources and patient preferences and doing so via a process that is genuinely collaborative. Yet, the literature is largely silent about how to accomplish integrative, shared decision making. Implications for evidence-based practice are discussed for 2 theories of clinician decision making (expected utility and fuzzy trace) and 2 theories of patient health decision making (transtheoretical model and reasoned action). Three suggestions are offered. First, it would be advantageous to have theory-based algorithms that weight and integrate the 3 data strands (evidence, resources, preferences) in different decisional contexts. Second, patients, not providers, make the decisions of greatest impact on public health, and those decisions are behavioral. Consequently, theory explicating how provider-patient collaboration can influence patient lifestyle decisions made miles from the provider's office is greatly needed. Third, although the preponderance of data on complex decisions supports a computational approach, such an approach to evidence-based practice is too impractical to be widely applied at present. More troublesomely, until patients come to trust decisions made computationally more than they trust their providers' intuitions, patient adherence will remain problematic. A good theory of integrative, collaborative health decision making remains needed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Patients spend approximately 5000 of their waking hours annually out of contact with any healthcare provider.
“An effort to connect patients with health-promoting influences in their immediate environment also is needed, especially because patients spend ≈5000 of their waking hours annually out of contact with any healthcare provider.64,65”
From Better Population Health Through Behavior Change in Adults: A Call to Action (2013) · cites this paper as [64]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 111 · Cited by 61
- Authors
- Spring, B.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Spring, Bonnie
- ORCID
- Spring, Bonnie
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-11
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 866-874
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- PMC
- PMC2613489
- OpenAlex
- W2144104523
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 111
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 10.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (N01 LM63512)
- National Center for Research Resources (M01RR013987, UL1RR025741)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- health decision-making, evidence-based practice, shared decision-making, expected utility theory, fuzzy-trace theory, transtheoretical model, theory of reasoned action, patient preferences, patient adherence
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Life Style, Models, Psychological, Physician-Patient Relations, Health Behavior, Fuzzy Logic, Evidence-Based Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review