Many faces of rationality: Implications of the great rationality debate for clinical decision-making.

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 9609066 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1365-2753 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 13561294 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Eval Clin Pract Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: Oxford, England : Wiley-Blackwell, c1995-

Choice Behavior* ; Clinical Decision-Making* ; Emotions* ; Models, Psychological* ; Thinking*; Cognition ; Decision Making ; Humans ; Policy Making ; Problem Solving

Given that more than 30% of healthcare costs are wasted on inappropriate care, suboptimal care is increasingly connected to the quality of medical decisions. It has been argued that personal decisions are the leading cause of death, and 80% of healthcare expenditures result from physicians' decisions. Therefore, improving healthcare necessitates improving medical decisions, ie, making decisions (more) rational. Drawing on writings from The Great Rationality Debate from the fields of philosophy, economics, and psychology, we identify core ingredients of rationality commonly encountered across various theoretical models. Rationality is typically classified under umbrella of normative (addressing the question how people "should" or "ought to" make their decisions) and descriptive theories of decision-making (which portray how people actually make their decisions). Normative theories of rational thought of relevance to medicine include epistemic theories that direct practice of evidence-based medicine and expected utility theory, which provides the basis for widely used clinical decision analyses. Descriptive theories of rationality of direct relevance to medical decision-making include bounded rationality, argumentative theory of reasoning, adaptive rationality, dual processing model of rationality, regret-based rationality, pragmatic/substantive rationality, and meta-rationality. For the first time, we provide a review of wide range of theories and models of rationality. We showed that what is "rational" behaviour under one rationality theory may be irrational under the other theory. We also showed that context is of paramount importance to rationality and that no one model of rationality can possibly fit all contexts. We suggest that in context-poor situations, such as policy decision-making, normative theories based on expected utility informed by best research evidence may provide the optimal approach to medical decision-making, whereas in the context-rich circumstances other types of rationality, informed by human cognitive architecture and driven by intuition and emotions such as the aim to minimize regret, may provide better solution to the problem at hand. The choice of theory under which we operate is important as it determines both policy and our individual decision-making.
(© 2017 The Authors Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

N Engl J Med. 1980 May 15;302(20):1109-17. (PMID: 7366635)
BMJ. 2016 Jan 06;352:h6967. (PMID: 26739799)
JAMA. 2011 May 18;305(19):2005-6. (PMID: 21586716)
BMJ. 2012 Sep 25;345:e6144. (PMID: 23015034)
JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315(22):2397-8. (PMID: 27213914)
J Eval Clin Pract. 2017 Feb;23(1):49-65. (PMID: 26683386)
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Nov;83(5):1178-97. (PMID: 12416921)
Behav Brain Sci. 2011 Apr;34(2):57-74; discussion 74-111. (PMID: 21447233)
JAMA. 2012 Apr 11;307(14):1513-6. (PMID: 22419800)
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2015 Sep;41(5):1516-32. (PMID: 25642844)
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Dec;21(6):1121-4. (PMID: 26639018)
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Nov;68:27-37. (PMID: 27710829)
Annu Rev Psychol. 1979;30:363-96. (PMID: 18331186)
N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 28;371(9):796-7. (PMID: 25162885)
Med Decis Making. 2007 Jan-Feb;27(1):53-60. (PMID: 17237453)
Cancer Control. 2009 Apr;16(2):158-68. (PMID: 19337202)
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Sep 03;12:94. (PMID: 22943520)
N Engl J Med. 1989 Jun 1;320(22):1489-91. (PMID: 2497349)
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004 Mar;133(1):23-30. (PMID: 14979749)
J Oncol Pract. 2014 May;10(3):200-2. (PMID: 24839282)
Behav Brain Sci. 2011 Oct;34(5):233-48; discussion 249-90. (PMID: 22000212)
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov 4;149(9):627-37. (PMID: 18838716)
Eur J Clin Invest. 2015 May;45(5):485-93. (PMID: 25675907)
J Eval Clin Pract. 2017 Oct;23(5):915-922. (PMID: 28730671)
Med Decis Making. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):540-53. (PMID: 18480041)
Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Feb;32(1):69-84; discussion 85-120. (PMID: 19210833)
Front Psychol. 2012 Dec 24;3:577. (PMID: 23269919)
Top Cogn Sci. 2009 Jan;1(1):107-43. (PMID: 25164802)
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 04;10(8):e0134038. (PMID: 26241650)
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Jul;19(7):383-93. (PMID: 26058709)
Lancet. 2006 Dec 9;368(9552):2035-7. (PMID: 17161713)
Lancet. 2017 Jul 22;390(10092):415-423. (PMID: 28215660)
BMJ. 2008 May 10;336(7652):1049-51. (PMID: 18467413)
JAMA. 2012 May 2;307(17):1801-2. (PMID: 22492759)
N Engl J Med. 1975 Jul 31;293(5):229-34. (PMID: 1143303)
Risk Anal. 2004 Apr;24(2):311-22. (PMID: 15078302)

Date Created: 20170722 Date Completed: 20180611 Latest Revision: 20240327

20240327

PMC5655784

10.1111/jep.12788

28730671