Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081, BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Postbus 1, 3720, BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
BMC Psychol. 2020 Feb 3;8(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s40359-020-0381-1.
Our study examined the use of decision-making styles, as identified by Scott and Bruce (1995) (i.e. differentiating between a rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant and spontaneous decision-making style), within the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In the field of cancer screening, informed decision-making is considered important, which follows the Rational Decision model. Subsequently, gaining more insight into decision-making styles being used in real life, could improve support to people when making their screening decision. In addition, we examined whether the decision-making style that people used was associated with their experienced decisional conflict.
An online survey was carried out among a sample of first-time CRC screening invitees (1282 respondents, response rate 49%). We assessed people's decision-making styles, CRC screening participation, education level, self-reported health literacy, and decisional conflict, and examined the possible associations between them.
In our study, people who had to decide about CRC screening scored high on using both a rational and intuitive decision-making style. Respondents scoring higher on using a spontaneous or dependent decision-making style were more likely to have participated in CRC screening, while respondents scoring higher on using an avoidant decision-making style were more likely not to have participated in CRC screening. However, differences were small. Generally, people in our study experienced low decisional conflict.
Our eligible CRC screening population scored high on using both a rational and intuitive decision-making style. To optimise support to people, public education materials could be appealing more to the intuitive processes at hand. That being said, the current education materials aimed at informed/rational decision-making do not necessarily seem to create a problem, as people generally experienced low decisional conflict. Possible concerns regarding the use of a spontaneous, dependent or avoidant decision-making style could be that these styles might be contributing to less informed decisions. However, it is relevant to consider that the found differences are small and that any possible concern applies to a relatively small group of people.
我们的研究考察了决策风格的使用，这些风格是由 Scott 和 Bruce（1995 年）确定的（即区分理性、直觉、依赖、回避和自发的决策风格），其应用背景是结直肠癌（CRC）筛查参与。在癌症筛查领域，知情决策被认为很重要，这遵循理性决策模型。随后，深入了解在现实生活中使用的决策风格，可以在人们做出筛查决策时为他们提供更好的支持。此外，我们还研究了人们使用的决策风格是否与其经历的决策冲突有关。
我们对首次 CRC 筛查邀请的样本（1282 名受访者，回应率为 49%）进行了在线调查。我们评估了人们的决策风格、CRC 筛查参与、教育水平、自我报告的健康素养和决策冲突，并研究了它们之间的可能关联。
在我们的研究中，必须决定是否进行 CRC 筛查的人在使用理性和直觉决策风格方面得分较高。使用自发性或依赖性决策风格得分较高的受访者更有可能参加 CRC 筛查，而使用回避性决策风格得分较高的受访者更有可能不参加 CRC 筛查。然而，差异较小。一般来说，我们研究中的参与者经历的决策冲突较小。
我们的合格 CRC 筛查人群在使用理性和直觉决策风格方面得分较高。为了优化对人们的支持，公共教育材料可以更多地吸引手头的直觉过程。话虽如此，目前旨在实现知情/理性决策的教育材料似乎并没有造成问题，因为人们普遍经历的决策冲突较小。对使用自发性、依赖性或回避性决策风格的潜在担忧可能是，这些风格可能导致决策不够明智。然而，需要考虑到发现的差异较小，并且任何可能的问题都适用于相对较小的人群。
