Theories in cognitive psychology, decision psychology, communication, and education support the value of Internet features for providing interactive information and deliberative support.
Furthermore, screening for low self-efficacy or minimal familiarity with the decision may facilitate tailoring the level of decision support for patients who need more/less-detailed clinical information and deliberative support.
Such a laboratory could include a web-based research platform that: a) presents a patient decision aid; b) has interactive features that allow patients to self-tailor the clinical information and deliberative support they receive to meet their decision-making needs and deliberative style; and c) incorporates data collection items for research.
Type 1 processes are intuitive, automatic, fast, narrative, experiential and affect-based; type 2 processes are analytical, slow, verbal, and deliberative supporting formal logical and probabilistic analyses [ 7- 16].
The processes are intended to support deliberative decision-making with the expectation that such deliberation will enhance the acceptability of actions that may need to be taken in a pandemic.
Our study thus identifies several potentially important tasks for enhancing the value and use of personalised risk information: (1) increasing patients' exposure to personalised risk information, (2) providing resources to support deliberative decision-making and (3) providing epistemological education on the nature of medical knowledge and evidence.
It supports deliberative processes [ 12, 90] allowing decisionmakers to combine all types of evidence and values, and increases the likelihood of making solid decisions.
The positive views held by interviewees regarding evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues are supported by a recent survey of policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers from LMICs, whereby respondents viewed evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues very favorably and reported strong intentions to act on what they learned in the briefs and dialogues [ 36].
The algorithm is designed to support a deliberative, clinically comprehensive, preventive-ethics approach to guide obstetricians in decision making with this challenging population of patients.
To date, some attempts to capture non-quantifiable criteria to support the deliberative process have been reported [ 20, 21].
We focus on differences in oral communication patterns among professions, in scheduled and unscheduled contexts, to identify factors which restrict or facilitate deliberative verbal communication, to support the development of interventions to improve interprofessional collaboration in health care.
