Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning

, , , , , & (2022) Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning. Palliative Care and Social Practice, 16.

Open access copy at publisher website

Description

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.

Impact and interest:

4 citations in Scopus
4 citations in Web of Science®
Search Google Scholar™

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

50 since deposited on 16 May 2022
14 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 230792
Item Type: Contribution to Journal (Journal Article)
Refereed: Yes
ORCID iD:
Whyte, Stephenorcid.org/0000-0002-9464-1110
Rego, Joannaorcid.org/0000-0002-6739-015X
Fai Chan, Hoorcid.org/0000-0002-7281-5212
Chan, Raymond J.orcid.org/0000-0003-0248-7046
Yates, Patsyorcid.org/0000-0001-8946-8504
Dulleck, Uweorcid.org/0000-0002-0953-5963
Measurements or Duration: 26 pages
Keywords: advance care planning, cognitive bias, end of life, framing, shared decision-making
DOI: 10.1177/26323524221092458
ISSN: 2632-3524
Pure ID: 109911435
Divisions: Current > Research Centres > Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society & Technology
Current > Research Centres > Centre for Healthcare Transformation
Current > Research Centres > Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Business & Law
Current > Schools > School of Economics & Finance
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Schools > School of Clinical Sciences
Current > Schools > School of Nursing
Funding:
Copyright Owner: 2022 The Author(s)
Copyright Statement: This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au
Deposited On: 16 May 2022 23:11
Last Modified: 26 Jun 2025 09:59