Decision Support for Patients

  • Holly Brügge Jimison
  • Paul Phillip Sher
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


This chapter is designed to introduce the concept of computer-based diagnostic and other decision support systems for patients. It is difficult to separate these systems from the more general area of consumer health informatics. Consumer health informatics represents a diverse field devoted to the development, implementation, and research on telecommunication and computer applications designed to be used by consumers to access information on a wide variety of health care topics. This technology, both hardware and software, is part of a growing trend toward empowering consumers to take a more active role in their own health care and to provide the necessary information to enhance their decision making. Today, more than ever, consumers are using information technology as either a substitute for traditional physician-based medical information or as a supplement to the information provided by health care professionals in the course of clinical encounters.


Decision Support Health Information Decision Support System Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Consumer Health 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brody DS, Miller SM, Lerman CE et al. Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 1989; 4:506–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware J Jr. Expanding patient involvement in care: effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1985; 102:520–528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Korsch BM. What do patients and parents want to know? What do they need to know? Pediatrics 1984; 74:917–919.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mahler HI, Kulik JA. Preferences for health care involvement, perceived control and surgical recovery: a prospectie study. Soc Sci Med 1990; 31:743–751.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A et al. Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med 1989; 4:23–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waitzkin H. Doctor-patient communication: clinical implications of social scientific research. JAMA 1984; 252:2441–2446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Thiel EC, Sem FWC et al. Presenting clinical trial information: a comparison of methods. Patient Educ Couns 1995; 25:97–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gustafson DH, Bosworth K, Hawkins RP et al. CHESS: a computer-based support system for providing information, referrals, decision support and social support to people facing medical and other health-related crises. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1992: 161–165.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pingree S, Hawkins RP, Gustafson DH et al. Will HIV-positive people use an interactive computer system for information and support? A study of CHESS in two communities. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1993:22–26.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peterson C, Stunkard AJ. Personal control and health promotion. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28:819–828.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cassileth B, Aupkis R, Sutton-Smith K et al. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med 1980; 92:832–836.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Israel BA, Sherman SJ. Social support, control and the stress process. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer B, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mullen PD, Laville EA, Biddle AK et al. Efficacy of psychoeducational interventions on pain, depression, and disability in people with arthritis: a meta-analysis. J Rheumatol 1987; 14(Suppl 15):33–39.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maibach E, Flora J, Nass C. Changes in self-efficacy and health behavior in response to a minimal contact community health campaign. Health Communication 1991; 3:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lorig K, Chastain RL, Ung E et al. Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1989; 32:37–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holman H, Lorig K. Patient education in the rheumatic diseases-pros and cons. Bull Rheum Dis 1987; 37:1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy: towards a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977; 84:191–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Leary A, Shoor S, Lorig K et al. A cognitive-behavioral treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Psychol 1988; 7:527–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feste C, Anderson RM. Empowerment: from philosophy to practice. Patient Educ Couns 1995; 26:139–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson RM, Funneil MM, Butler PM et al. Patient empowerment. Results of a randomized trial. Diabetes Care 1995; 18:943–949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Allen JK, Becker DM, Swank RT. Factors related to functional status after coronary artery bypass surgery. Heart Lung 1990; 19:337–343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cunningham AJ, Lockwood GA, Cunningham JA. A relationship between perceived self-efficacy and quality of life in cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns 1991; 17:71–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Leary A. Self-efficacy and health. Behav Res Ther 1985; 23:437–451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gustafson DH, Hawkins RP, Boberg EW et al. The impact of computer support on HIV infected individuals. Final report to the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jimison HB, Henrion M. Hierarchical preference models for patients with chronic disease. Med Decis Making 1992; 7:351.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldstein MK, Clarke AE, Michelson D et al. Developing and testing a multimedia presentation of a health-state description. Med Decis Making 1994; 14:336–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nease RF Jr. Risk attitudes in gambles involving length of life: aspirations, variations, and ruminations. Med Decis Making 1994; 14:201–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Skinner CS, Strecher VJ, Hospers H. Physicians’ recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference? Am J Public Health 1994; 84:43–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thompson SC, Pitts JS, Schwankovsky L. Preferences for involvement in medical decision-making: situational and demographic influences. Patient Educ Couns 1993; 22:133–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Funnell MM, Donnelly MB, Anderson RM et al. Perceived effectiveness, cost, and availability of patient education methods and materials. Diabetes Educ 1992; 18:139–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alterman AI, Baughman TG. Videotape versus computer interactive education in alcoholic and nonalcoholic controls. Alcoholism 1991; 15:39–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gillispie MA, Ellis LBM. Computer-based patient education revisited. J Med Syst 1993; 17:119–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Consoli SM, Ben Said M, Jean J et al. Benefits of a computer-assisted education program for hypertensive patients compared with standard education tools. Patient Educ Couns 1995; 26:343–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Skinner CS, Siegfried JC, Kegler MC et al. The potential of computers in patient education. Patient Educ Couns 1993; 22:27–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kasper JF, Mulley AF Jr., Wennberg JE. Developing shared decision making programs to improve the quality of health care. Qual Rev Bull 1992; 18:183–190.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brown MS. Polish and glitz aside, net resources fall short on the content yardstick. Medicine on the Net 1996; 2:7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hubbard SM, Martin NB, Thurn AL. NCI’s cancer information systems—bringing medical knowledge to clinicians. Oncology 1995; 9:302–309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ferguson CH. Computers and the coming of the U.S. keiretsu. Harv Bus Rev 1990; 68:55–70.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kieschnick T, Adler L, Jimison HB. 1996 Health Informatics Directory. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1995.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jimison HB, Sher PP. Consumer health informatics: health information technology for consumers. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1995; 46:783–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kreps GL. Communication and health education: systems and applications. In: Brand R, Donohew L, eds. Communication and Health: Systems and Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Beisecker AE, Beisecker TD. Patient information-seeking behaviors when communicating with doctors. Med Care 1990; 28:19–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kahn G. Computer-based patient education: a progress report. MD Comput 1993; 10:93–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kahn G. Computer-generated patient handouts. MD Comput 1993; 10:157–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bouhaddou O, Warner H. An interactive patient information and education system (Medical HouseCall) based on a physician expert system (Illiad). Medlnfo 1995; 8 Pt 2:1181–1185.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bouhaddou O, Lambert JG, Morgan GE. Illiad and Medical House-Call: evaluating the impact of common sense knowledge on the diagnostic accuracy of a medical expert system. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appi Med Care 1995:742–746.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Peterson MC, Holbrook JH, Von Hales D et al. Contributions of the history, physical examination, and laboratory investigation in making medical diagnoses. West J Med 1992; 156:163–166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Harris J. National Assessment of Consumer Health Information Demand and Delivery, in Summary Conference Report, Reference Point Foundation, Partnership for Networked Health Information for the Public, Rancho Mirage, CA. May 14–16, 1995. Washington, DC: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, DHHS, 1995, 3–5.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G et al. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Fam Pract 1990; 31:533–538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1985.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Holt GA, Hallon JD, Hughes SE et al. OTC labels: can consumers read and understand them? Am Pharm 1990; 30:51–54.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Davis TC, Mayeaux EJ. Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics 1994; 93:460–468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Petterson T. How readable are the hospital information leaflets available to elderly patients? Age Ageing 1994; 23:14–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Morgan PP. Illiteracy can have major impact on patients’ understanding of health care information. Can Med Assoc J 1993; 148:1196–1197.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Feldman SR, Quinlivan A. Illiteracy and the readability of patient education materials. A look at Health Watch. N C Med J 1994; 55:290–292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jubelirer SJ, Linton JC. Reading versus comprehension: implications for patient education and consent in an outpatient oncology clinic. J Cancer Educ 1994; 9:26–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Reid JC, Klachko DM, Kardash CA et al. Why people don’t learn from diabetes literature: influence of text and reader characteristics. Patient Educ Couns 1995; 25:31–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Berner ES, Webster GD, Shugerman AA et al. Performance of four computer-based diagnostic systems. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1792–1796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sobel DS. Self-care in health: Information to empower people. In: Levy AH, Williams B. Proc Annu Conf—Am Assoc Med Syst Inf Conf 1987:12–125.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holly Brügge Jimison
  • Paul Phillip Sher

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations