Cognitive Biases in Treatment Choices in Multiple Sclerosis
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Cognitive Biases in Treatment Choices of Persons with Multiple Sclerosis
IRAS ID
194380
Contact name
Clare Barker-Ellis
Contact email
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 3 months, 14 days
Research summary
The proposed research uses a series of experimental tasks to explore the cognitive biases that may impact on decision-making and ways to overcome them. A sample consisting of 3 groups (patients with MS, non-neurological medical patients and healthy controls) will undertake a computerised package of questionnaires and tasks. Tasks will be systematically varied in content and presentation to manipulate the likelihood of cognitive biases being employed. To determine the extent to which cognitive biases are implemented (and their influence on the task outcome), the decisions made/answers given by participants, and their risk estimations will be measured as the dependent variables.
Analysis will compare the decisions made within group (patients with MS, non-neurological medical patients and healthy controls), between groups, and across different scenarios (MS related, general health and neutral topics). Interpretation of the results will examine the cognitive underpinnings of decision-making in healthy controls and patients with and without a neurological condition. It will also explore whether differential presentation of information influences the likelihood of cognitive biases being employed and consequently the decision that is made. This has implications for best practice of communicating treatment options with patients.
A dual process model of reasoning will be used as a framework for study design and interpretation of results. The dual process theory proposes two general classes of cognitive operations to explain human reasoning: heuristic (Type 1) and analytical (Type 2) (Evans, 2008 and Croskerry, 2009). In some circumstances, an intuitive approach may be appropriate, whereas in others an analytical approach might be preferred (Simon, 1990), and at times a blend of the two may be optimal (Croskerry, 2009). The respective operating characteristics of the two processes expose them to error in different ways, which will be experimentally manipulated.REC name
West Midlands - Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/WM/0060
Date of REC Opinion
30 Mar 2016
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion