2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/165266
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
A METHODS DISCUSSION OF AN INNOVATIVE WAY TO STUDY HEALTH RISK
Author(s):
Facione, Noreen; Facione, Peter
Author Details:
Noreen Facione, RN,PhD, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Peter Facione, PhD
Abstract:
Many of our cancer research studies seek to understand human judgments and health risk decisions as a way of decreasing cancer risk and optimizing cancer care and survival. This paper presents an innovative data analysis methodology to analyze subjects’ accounts of their decision-making and judgment processes, whether the subjects are providers who administer cancer control interventions or people who make cancer prevention or treatment decisions. This method is a blend of applied logic and cognitive research on human reasoning. The paper discussed the analysis of interview data capturing a cancer risk decision. The data is coded and diagramed in separate argument strands. Strands are evaluated and constructed into the complete argument map. The resulting analysis reports the content of key reasons for the decision being made, the quality of the reasoning process in terms of ‘good thinking,’ describes the subject’s exploration of alternative cancer control options (conclusions about what to do), and describes where the argument engenders the subject’s confidence in a judgment that entails the possible consequence of advanced cancer and death. Although the method is robust, and could be used to analyze any high stakes decision, this paper demonstrates the method using a case study of a woman who confidently makes a judgment to delay seeking diagnosis of symptoms she describes as 'possibly breast cancer.' Diagrams of analyzed argument strands, the assessed logical strength of the thinking process, an account of the use of heuristic reasoning, and the complete argument map (results of the analysis) explain her confidence in a poorly reasoned argument to delay diagnosis of her symptoms. Watershed moments when the subject appears able to entertain seeking diagnosis are also identified. This methodology fills a gap for behavioral researchers in cancer control, explaining judgments that motivate cancer related behavior we seek to modify. For the adept clinician, it offers ways to assess participation in management decisions. Such mappings of high stakes cancer risk and cancer management decisions offer new insights to understand cancer risk behavior, new opportunities to intervene with targeted educational and decision-making interventions, and new hope for impacting stage at diagnosis and long term survival.
Repository Posting Date:
27-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
27-Oct-2011
Conference Date:
2005
Conference Name:
30th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congress
Conference Host:
Oncology Nursing Society
Conference Location:
Orlando, Florida, USA
Sponsors:
Funding Sources: California Breast Cancer Research Program was the funding agency for this case study data.
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_US
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleA METHODS DISCUSSION OF AN INNOVATIVE WAY TO STUDY HEALTH RISKen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFacione, Noreenen_US
dc.contributor.authorFacione, Peteren_US
dc.author.detailsNoreen Facione, RN,PhD, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Peter Facione, PhDen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/165266-
dc.description.abstractMany of our cancer research studies seek to understand human judgments and health risk decisions as a way of decreasing cancer risk and optimizing cancer care and survival. This paper presents an innovative data analysis methodology to analyze subjects’ accounts of their decision-making and judgment processes, whether the subjects are providers who administer cancer control interventions or people who make cancer prevention or treatment decisions. This method is a blend of applied logic and cognitive research on human reasoning. The paper discussed the analysis of interview data capturing a cancer risk decision. The data is coded and diagramed in separate argument strands. Strands are evaluated and constructed into the complete argument map. The resulting analysis reports the content of key reasons for the decision being made, the quality of the reasoning process in terms of ‘good thinking,’ describes the subject’s exploration of alternative cancer control options (conclusions about what to do), and describes where the argument engenders the subject’s confidence in a judgment that entails the possible consequence of advanced cancer and death. Although the method is robust, and could be used to analyze any high stakes decision, this paper demonstrates the method using a case study of a woman who confidently makes a judgment to delay seeking diagnosis of symptoms she describes as 'possibly breast cancer.' Diagrams of analyzed argument strands, the assessed logical strength of the thinking process, an account of the use of heuristic reasoning, and the complete argument map (results of the analysis) explain her confidence in a poorly reasoned argument to delay diagnosis of her symptoms. Watershed moments when the subject appears able to entertain seeking diagnosis are also identified. This methodology fills a gap for behavioral researchers in cancer control, explaining judgments that motivate cancer related behavior we seek to modify. For the adept clinician, it offers ways to assess participation in management decisions. Such mappings of high stakes cancer risk and cancer management decisions offer new insights to understand cancer risk behavior, new opportunities to intervene with targeted educational and decision-making interventions, and new hope for impacting stage at diagnosis and long term survival.en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-27T12:15:28Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-27en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-27T12:15:28Z-
dc.conference.date2005en_US
dc.conference.name30th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congressen_US
dc.conference.hostOncology Nursing Societyen_US
dc.conference.locationOrlando, Florida, USAen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipFunding Sources: California Breast Cancer Research Program was the funding agency for this case study data.-
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.