Ben,
Thanks for pointing this article out!
I think this must depend on what factors are important to the rater: I might love my shiny toy car after 6 months but hate it after 4 years. The purchase might be so small a percentage of my income that the fun factor is predominant or the purchase might be such a large percentage that performance is more important.
If I will view my choice of car more favorably the better its reliability and safety and efficiency, it is hard for me to imagine that deliberation without attention will produce a better choice than checking Consumer's Union.
Choosing a house, for which no Consumer's Union-type function is feasible, would be far more likely to benefit from deliberation without attention, since my pleasure in it will be due to a mix of function, image, location, neighbors, schools, and shopping so complex that conscious deliberation will be too impoverished an approach to address the problem space.
Best regards.
Jim
James M. Walker, MD
Chief Medical Information Officer
Geisinger Health System
>>> "Djulbegovic, Benjamin" <[log in to unmask]> 03/06/06 8:39 AM >>>
If we broaden criteria, and allow moving from locating evidence to
decision-making, this one is my favorite (last 14 months):
On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect
Ap Dijksterhuis,* Maarten W. Bos, Loran F. Nordgren, Rick B. van Baaren
Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not always advantageous to engage
in thorough conscious deliberation before choosing. On the basis of
recent insights into the characteristics of conscious and unconscious
thought, we tested the hypothesis that simple choices (such as between
different towels or different sets of oven mitts) indeed produce better
results after conscious thought, but that choices in complex matters
(such as between different houses or different cars) should be left to
unconscious thought. Named the "deliberation-without-attention"
hypothesis, it was confirmed in four studies on consumer choice, both in
the laboratory as well as among actual shoppers, that purchases of
complex products were viewed more favorably when decisions had been made
in the absence of attentive deliberation.
(Science 17 February 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5763, pp. 1005 - 1007)
Implications (as I see it): when confronted with myriad of choices we
should use our intuition to weed out among many options that we may be
facing; once the choice is narrowed down to several clear-cut
alternatives, rely on explicit methods of decision-making.
Benjamin Djulbegovic, MD,PhD
Professor of Oncology and Medicine
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute at the University of
South Florida Department of Interdisciplinary Oncology, MRC, Floor 2,
12902 Magnolia Drive
Tampa, FL 33612
e-mail:[log in to unmask]
http://www.hsc.usf.edu/~bdjulbeg/
phone:(813)972-4673
fax:(813)745-6525
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Glasziou
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 03:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Best EBM methods papers for 2005?
Rheinard
Good suggestion. And related to that is the review she has done on
diffusion of innovations which is available as a Blackwell's book
"Diffusion of Innovations In Health Service Organisations: A
systematic literature review"
Cheers
Paul
At 06/03/2006, Reinhard Wentz wrote:
>(With thanks to Paul Glasziou for getting this ball rolling again):
>
>Must be a contender, if only for its integration of the 'snowballing'
>process into the search process:
>
>Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods
>in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources
BMJ,
>Nov 2005; 331: 1064 - 1065.
>Abstract: Objective: To describe where papers come from in a systematic
>review of complex evidence. Method: Audit of how the 495 primary
sources
>for the review were originally identified. Results: Only 30% of sources
>were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study
(that
>is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were
>identified by "snowballing" (such as pursuing references of
references),
>and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts.
>Conclusion: Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely
on
>protocol-driven search strategies.
>http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16
230312
> or
>http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/331/7524/1064
>
>Reinhard Wentz
>
>Reinhard Wentz, Dipl. Bibl.
>Medical Informaticist
>33, Gladstone Avenue
>Twickenham TW2 7PS
Paul Glasziou
Department of Primary Health Care &
Director, Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Oxford
ph: 44-1865-227055
-----------------------------------------
###########################################################################
## This transmission may be confidential or protected from disclosure and
is only for review and use by the intended recipient. Access by anyone else
is unauthorized. Any unauthorized reader is hereby notified that any
review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this information, or
any act or omission taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender immediately. Thank you. #########################################
####################################
IMPORTANT WARNING: The information in this message (and the documents attached to it, if any) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken, or omitted to be taken, in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message (and the documents attached to it, if any), destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately by replying to this email. Thank you.
|