Uncertainty in health care: Towards a more systematic program of research
Introduction
Uncertainty is an essential aspect of human life and an integral problem of medicine. It is the single, common challenge faced by every patient who receives health care and every clinician who provides it, as well as the administrators, payers, policymakers, and researchers who deliver, finance, regulate, and study it. In every one of these diverse activities undertaken by different stakeholders, uncertainty of one form or another—arising from various sources, pertaining to any number of relevant issues, and formed and reformed through communication—provides the call to action, and provokes a variety of different responses [1].
Uncertainty in health care is by no means a new topic, but one as old as medicine itself [2]. Yet uncertainty in health care has grown in visibility and importance in recent years. Advances in medical science, culminating in the sequencing of the human genome, have produced an ever-expanding array of new technologies of unproven value. The evidence-based medicine movement has clarified what is known but also unknown about the benefits and harms of a growing number of medical interventions, raising professional awareness of scientific ignorance [[3], [4], [5], [6]]. At the same time, a growing emphasis on patient engagement and shared decision making in health care has begun to extend awareness of this ignorance to patients and laypersons. Broadening dissemination of medical information through both traditional mass media and social media channels has extended this awareness even further, to the general public. The end result of these trends has been heightened collective uncertainty in health care.
For a problem of such integral and growing importance, one might expect uncertainty in health care to be the focus of its own systematic program of research. Certainly, the volume of research on uncertainty appears to be increasing; a PubMed literature search using “uncertainty” as either a MeSH term or a title word demonstrates exponential growth (Fig. 1). Even a cursory survey of this literature reveals studies spanning the entire spectrum of translational research and conducted by investigators representing a variety of disciplines from anthropology to zoology. Most studies have focused on resolving uncertainty about some particular issue, rather than investigating uncertainty per se, as an object of inquiry in its own right. Nevertheless, studies focused explicitly on uncertainty have also grown in number and diversity.
This growth, however, belies a lack of systematicity: research on uncertainty has developed organically, in an uncoordinated, piecemeal fashion. This evolutionary path is understandable; uncertainty is a complex phenomenon with myriad manifestations, causes, and effects (Box 1). No single study, investigator, or discipline can capture all of its complexity. Yet the lack of systematicity also raises problems, as recent reviews of research on the nature of uncertainty and the phenomenon of “uncertainty tolerance” have demonstrated [1,7,8]. Diversity in research generates not only rich insights but confusion and inefficiency. The same phenomenon becomes defined using different terms, and vice versa. Important conceptual assumptions are taken for granted rather than being made explicit. Studies simply duplicate one another rather than asking and answering unique questions, and generate both false-positive and false-negative empirical findings in terms of their novelty, significance, and true value to the field. Multiple theories proliferate, each focused on different parts of the proverbial elephant, seen through different conceptual lenses and described using different languages. Researchers talk past rather than with one another, and fail to reach a shared understanding of what is truly known and not known about the phenomenon [9].
We believe that simply maintaining the status quo only adds to the plethora of disconnected—and either redundant or unnoticed—findings, concepts, and theories, and impedes understanding. Research on medical uncertainty needs to evolve from an organic and piecemeal to a more deliberate, coordinated, integrated program of work.
Of course, absolute systematicity is an unattainable ideal. The problem of medical uncertainty is simply too complex—and the research enterprise too vast—to consolidate within one unified research program or theoretical paradigm. From a pragmatic perspective, furthermore, there is no single best program or true paradigm, only more or less useful ones. Yet we believe at least some progress towards greater systematicity is possible and necessary; the alternative is perpetual fragmentation in our understanding. Greater systematicity, however, requires meaningful consensus on basic concepts, issues, and research priorities, and collaborative engagement of the research community.
The current paper is an attempt to promote these goals. We examine three fundamental aspects of medical uncertainty that we believe a systematic program of research should address: its nature, its effects, and its communication. These questions correspond, respectively, to three broad research questions. First, what exactly is uncertainty, and how does it originate? Second, how does uncertainty affect patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders? Third, how—and why—should we communicate uncertainty in health care? These questions, we believe, cannot be coherently addressed without a shared understanding of key concepts, issues, and priorities, and the goal of this paper is to facilitate such understanding. Towards this end, we present a selective synthesis of conceptual definitions and frameworks that we and others have developed in prior literature reviews [1,7,[9], [10], [11], [12]]. We present these definitions and frameworks not as definitive endpoints for future research, but as provisional starting points—descriptive rather than explanatory models that can stimulate and guide further theoretical and empirical research on medical uncertainty, and engage the broader research community—including behavioral, clinical, communication, and social scientists—in these efforts.
Section snippets
The nature of uncertainty in health care
A precondition for any systematic, integrated program of research is consensus on the nature of the phenomenon of interest. Historically, the nature of uncertainty has been the province of numerous disciplines outside of health care—e.g., communication studies, economics, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, sociology—and the result has been a rich variety of conceptual models [1,[13], [14], [15], [16]]. In recent years, as the nature of uncertainty as a health care phenomenon has become a
Effects of uncertainty in health care
The important question of how uncertainty affects people has been the focus of empirical research conducted mostly outside of the domain of health care by social scientists. This body of research is vast and impossible to adequately summarize here, but a general conclusion is that uncertainty is typically an aversive phenomenon. It promotes pessimistic perceptions and judgments, negative affect, fear, and anxiety, indecision, avoidant behaviors, and information seeking. Aversion to probability
Communicating uncertainty in health care
The important practical task of communicating uncertainty has long been a central concern in applied technical fields outside of health care, including engineering and meteorology. The common need in each of these fields has been to communicate the level of scientific uncertainty about some specified outcome, so that people can take appropriate action. Probability, or risk, has been the primary language for expressing this uncertainty, and risk communication has become an increasingly important
Discussion
Uncertainty in health care is an extremely important but incompletely understood phenomenon, and we have argued that a more systematic program of research is needed to accelerate our understanding of it. We have briefly outlined some important knowledge gaps and key questions regarding its nature, effects, and communication, and put forth a few descriptive conceptual models that may serve as useful building blocks for broader frameworks and causal theories that can help make future research on
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Paul K.J. Han: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - original draft. Austin Babrow: Writing - review & editing. Marij A. Hillen: Writing - reviewing & editing. Pål Gulbrandsen: Writing - reviewing & editing. Ellen M. Smets: Writing - reviewing & editing. Eirik H. Ofstad: Writing - reviewing & editing.
Acknowledgments
Portions of this paper were presented at the 16th International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH). Porto, Portugal. September 2, 2018. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References (111)
- et al.
Tolerance of uncertainty: conceptual analysis, integrative model, and implications for healthcare
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2017) - et al.
Tolerance of uncertainty: a systematic review of health and healthcare-related outcomes
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2018) - et al.
Uncertainty in clinical medicine
Training for certainty
Soc. Sci. Med.
(1984)- et al.
Coping with uncertainty: a naturalistic decision-making analysis
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
(1997) - et al.
A taxonomy of medical uncertainties in clinical genome sequencing
Genet. Med.
(2017) - et al.
Uncertainty in consultations about genetic testing for cancer: an explorative observational study
Patient Educ. Couns.
(2018) - et al.
Navigating uncertainty in the management of incidental findings
J. Am. Coll. Radiol.
(2019) Into the unknown: a review and synthesis of contemporary models involving uncertainty
J. Anxiety Disord.
(2016)- et al.
Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct
Person Indiv Diff.
(1997)
Quantity versus uncertainty: when winning one prize is better than winning two
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
Shared decision-making as an existential journey: aiming for restored autonomous capacity
Patient Educ. Couns.
The possible impact of vulnerability on clinical communication: some reflections and a call for empirical studies
Patient Educ. Couns.
How long do I have? Observational study on communication about life expectancy with advanced cancer patients
Patient Educ. Couns.
Physician expressions of uncertainty during patient encounters
Patient Educ. Couns.
Doctors expressions of uncertainty and patient confidence
Patient Educ. Couns.
Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.
Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy
Med. Decis. Making
The evolution of medical uncertainty
Milbank Mem. Fund Q. Health Soc.
Evidence-based medicine, clinical uncertainty, and learning to doctor
J. Health Soc. Behav.
Epistemologic inquiries in evidence-based medicine
Cancer Control
From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty: indication creep and prevention creep
JAMA.
The many meaning of uncertainty in illness: toward a systematic accounting
Health Commun.
Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions
Med. Decis. Making
The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication
Med. Care Res. Rev.
Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence
Med. Care Res. Rev.
Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms
Ignorance and science: dilemmas, perspectives, and prospects
Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization.
Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy
Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2M)
Uncertainty in illness
Image. J. Nurs. Sch.
Reconceptualization of the uncertainty in illness theory
Image. J. Nurs. Sch.
Uncertainty and the shaping of medical decisions
Hastings Cent. Rep.
Training for uncertainty
Decision-related uncertainties perceived by people with cancer--modelling the subject of shared decision making
Psychooncology.
Uncertainty: a Guide to Dealing With Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis
The siren songs of science: toward a taxonomy of scientific uncertainty for decisionmakers
Conn. Law Rev.
Elicitation of Expert Opinions for Uncertainty and Risks
Problematic integration theory
Removal of Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM V: community response to uncertainty
Health Commun.
The medical, personal, and social causes of uncertainty in HIV illness
Issues Ment. Health Nurs.
Medical, personal, and social forms of uncertainty across the transplantation trajectory
Qual. Health Res.
The Silent World of Doctor and Patient
Why doctors don’t disclose uncertainty
Hastings Cent. Rep.
Conflicting health information: a critical research need
Health Expect.
General practitioners’ experiences of, and responses to, uncertainty in prostate Cancer screening: insights from a qualitative study
PLoS One
Mapping uncertainty in genomics
J. Risk Res.
Genetic counselors’ perceptions of uncertainty in pretest counseling for genomic sequencing: a qualitative study
J. Genet. Couns.
Cited by (72)
Exploring uncertainties regarding unsolicited findings in genetic testing
2024, Patient Education and CounselingUncertainty in complex healthcare settings – The need for a comprehensive approach
2023, Patient Education and CounselingBusiness intelligence in the healthcare industry: The utilization of a data-driven approach to support clinical decision making
2023, TechnovationCitation Excerpt :Despite the limited attention, this topic seems to be however very promising. Decision-making in healthcare is challenging because of the high complexity of decisions due to a high level of uncertainty, a huge number of interacting and unpredictable variables (Han et al., 2019; Kuziemsky, 2016; Massaro, 2021) and a multitude of heterogeneous actors involved (Secundo et al., 2019). In this highly complex context, physicians can be supported in decision-making through new technologies such as decision support systems (DSSs) (Bright et al., 2012; Kawamoto et al., 2005), which may provide suggestions for diagnoses, patient management, screening and management of treatment pathways (Garg et al., 2005).