Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:06:02.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of “Risk” in Decision-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

Michel Silberfeld
Michel Silberfeld
Affiliation:
Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Résumé

Cet article discute des limites auxquelles il faut faire face quand la notion de risque devient le facteur-clé dans une évaluation clinique. Ainsi, on présente la capacité de se choisir une place en centre d'accueil, pour illustrer la façon dont le problème est défini. En l'absence de composante évaluative, il est démontré que l'information habituellement recueillie ne peut être utilisée pour évaluer les risques sans y inclure un élément normatif. Une discussion concernant la nature du risque montre que les orientations normatives sont inhérentes à la perception du risque. Les principaux inconvénients, de permettre que les résultats soient étroitement rattachés à la notion de risque, sont de deux ordres: (1) les probabilités des risques ne sont pas connues et (2) les enjeux, chargés de valeurs, demeurent inconnus.

Keywords

RiskDecision-MakingCompetencyValuesRisquedécisioncapacitévaleurs
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Summer/été 1992 , pp. 124 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balla, J.I. (1985). The Diagnostic Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, C. (1988). Measurement of dressing performance in persons with dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer's Care and Related Disorders and Research, 3(3), 21–25.Google Scholar
Brearly, C.P. (1982). Risk and Social Work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Crockett, D., Tuokko, H., Koch, W., & Parks, R. (1989). Assessment of everyday functioning using the Present Functioning Questionnaire and the Functional Rating Scale in elderly samples. Clinical Gerontologist, 8(3), 3–25.Google Scholar
Daedalus. (1990). 119(4).Google Scholar
Drane, J.F. (1985). The Many Faces of Competency. Hastings Center Report 15(2), 17–22.Google Scholar
Dubler, N.N. (1988). Improving the Discharge Planning Process: Distinguishing Between Coercion and Choice. The Gerontologist, 28 (Suppl.), 76–81.Google Scholar
Feinstein, A.R. (1967). Clinical Judgment. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
Feinstein, A.R. (1987). Clinimetrics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Folstein, M.G., Folstein, S.E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975). ‘Mini-Mental State’ — a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, M., & Skilbeck, C. E. (1983). An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age and Ageing, 12(2), 166–170.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E. (1990). The process approach to neuropsychological assessment of psychiatric patients. Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 2, 1–11.Google Scholar
Katz, S., Downs, T.D., Cash, H.R., & Grotz, R.C. (1970). Progress in development of the index of ADL. Gerontologist, 10(1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, S., Ford, A.B., Moskowitz, R.W., Jackson, B.A., & Jaffe, M.W. (1961). Studies of illness in the aged, the ideal of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. American Medical Association Journal (JAMA), 185(12), 914–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyano, W., Shibata, H., Nakazato, K., Haga, H., Suyama, Y., & Matsuzaki, T. (1989). Mortality in relation to instrumental activities of daily living: one-year follow-up in a Japanese urban community. Journal of Gerontology, 44(3), 107–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, M.P., & Brody, E.M. (1969). Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist, 9, 180–186.Google Scholar
Landmark, B., Hamrin, E., & Tornquist, K. (1990). Testing daily functions post-stroke with standardized practical equipment. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 22(1), 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, A.G., Hemsley, D.R., Volans, P.J., & Bergmann, K. (1986). The relationship between alternative assessments of self-care ability in the elderly. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 51–59.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, D.A., Amigo, E., Duara, R., Guterman, A., & Hurwitz, D. (1989). A new scale for the assessment of functional status in Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. Journal of Gerontology, 44(4), 114–121.Google Scholar
MacLean, D. (Ed.). (1986). Values at Risk. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Mor, V., Murphy, J., Masterson, A.S., Willey, C., Razmpour, A., Jackson, M.E., Greer, D., & Katz, S. (1989). Risk of functional decline among well elders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42(9), 895–904.Google Scholar
Rameizl, P. (1983). Cadet, a self-care assessment tool. Geriatric Nursing, 4(6), 377–378.Google Scholar
Reuben, D.B., & Siu, A.L. (1990). An objective measure of physical function of elderly outpatients: The Physical Performance Test. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 38(10), 1105–1112.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, L.Z., Schairer, C., Wieland, G.D., & Kane, R. (1984). Systematic biases in functional status assessment of elderly adults: effects of different data sources. Journal of Gerontology, 39(6), 686–691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silberfeld, M. (1981). Hope, Loss and Entitlement: lessons from the oncology situation. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 26, 415–418.Google Scholar
Silberfeld, M. (1989). Entitlement and Rational Choice: Making Judgment about Judgment. Humane Medicine, 5, 58–63.Google Scholar
Siu, A.L., Reuben, D.B., & Hays, R.D. (1990). Hierarchial measures of physical function in ambulatory geriatrics. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 38(10), 1113–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjoberg, L., & Winroth, E. (1986). Risk, Moral Value of Actions, and Mood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2(3), 294–301.Google Scholar
Spector, W.D., Katz, S., & Murphy, J.B. (1987). Hierarchical relationship between activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(6), 481–489.Google Scholar
Starr, C. (1969). Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk. Science, 165, 1232–1238.Google Scholar
Tancredi, L.R. (1987). The Mental Status Examination. Generations, 11, 32–39.Google Scholar
Tornquist, K., Lovgren, M., & Soderfeldt, B. (1990). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value in Katz's and Barthel's ADL indices applied on patients in long term nursing care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science, 4(3), 99–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Travis, S.S., & McAuley, W.J. (1990). Simple counts of the number of basic ADL dependencies for long term care research and practice. Health Services Research, 25(2), 349–360.Google ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, M.C., & Fineberg, H.V. (1980). Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company.Google Scholar
Weiss, J.M. (1957). The Gamble with Death in Attempted Suicide. Psychiatry, 20, 17–25.Google Scholar
Weisstub, D.N., Chairman, (1990). Inquiry on Mental Competency: Final Report. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar