Clinician perspectives on delivering primary and specialty palliative care in community oncology practices.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines recommend early palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer. In rural and underserved community oncology practices with limited resources, both primary palliative care from an oncologist and specialty palliative care are needed to address patients' palliative care needs. The aim of this study is to describe community oncology clinicians' primary palliative care practices and perspectives on integrating specialty palliative care into routine advanced lung cancer treatment in rural and underserved communities. METHODS: Participants were clinicians recruited from 15 predominantly rural community oncology practices in Kentucky. Participants completed a one-time survey regarding their primary palliative care practices and knowledge, barriers, and facilitators to integrating specialty palliative care into advanced-stage lung cancer treatment. RESULTS: Forty-seven clinicians (30% oncologists) participated. The majority (72.3%) of clinicians worked in a rural county. Over 70% reported routinely asking patients about symptom and physical function concerns, whereas less than half reported routinely asking about key prognostic concerns. Roughly 30% held at least one palliative care misconception (e.g., palliative care is for only those who are stopping cancer treatment). Clinician-reported barriers to specialty palliative care referrals included fear a referral would send the wrong message to patients (77%) and concern about burdening patients with appointments (53%). Notably, the most common clinician-reported facilitator was a patient asking for a referral (93.6%). CONCLUSION: Educational programs and outreach efforts are needed to inform community oncology clinicians about palliative care, empower patients to request referrals, and facilitate patients' palliative care needs assessment, documentation, and standardized referral templates.

Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Metastatic Colon Cancer in Non-academic and Academic Programs.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival advantage of chemotherapy before versus after metastasectomy of liver or lung lesion is not clear for colon cancer with synchronous liver or lung metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults 20 years or older with primary colon cancer and single organ metastatic disease either in the liver or lung at diagnosis were identified between 2010 and 2015 through the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts: pre-operative/peri-operative chemotherapy (neoadjuvant -[NAC]) or post-operative chemotherapy (adjuvant [AC]). Survivals and factors associated with were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 3038 patients with colon cancer with liver or lung metastases were identified. The percentage of patients receiving NAC had steadily increased from 12.29% to 28.31%, mostly in academic programs. On multivariate analysis, patients who received NAC had an overall survival advantage in the non-academic setting whereas no advantage is seen in the patients treated in the academic settings. The median overall survival for patients receiving NAC and AC was 47.24 months and 38.08 months, respectively. Factors associated with overall survival advantage in NAC patients treated in non-academic programs included age 20-49 years, CEA value of >30, right-sided colon primary, liver metastasis, and clear resection margins. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic colon cancer with single organ liver or lung lesions benefits from neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially in -non-academic settings. The overall survival advantage in this setting has not been shown before.

Palliative care use and utilization determinants among patients treated for advanced stage lung cancer care in the community and academic medical setting.

PURPOSE: Despite clinical guidelines, palliative care is underutilized during advanced stage lung cancer treatment. To inform interventions to increase its use, patient-level barriers and facilitators (i.e., determinants) need to be characterized, especially among patients living in rural areas or those receiving treatment outside academic medical centers. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2021, advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 77; 62% rural; 58% receiving care in the community) completed a one-time survey assessing palliative care use and its determinants. Univariate and bivariate analyses described palliative care use and determinants and compared scores by patient demographic (e.g., rural vs. urban) and treatment setting (e.g., community vs. academic medical center) factors. RESULTS: Roughly half said they had never met with a palliative care doctor (49.4%) or nurse (58.4%) as part of cancer care. Only 18% said they knew what palliative care was and could explain it; 17% thought it was the same as hospice. After palliative care was distinguished from hospice, the most frequently cited reasons patients stated they would not seek palliative care were uncertainty about what it would offer (65%), concerns about insurance coverage (63%), difficulty attending multiple appointments (60%), and lack of discussion with an oncologist (59%). The most common reasons patients stated they would seek palliative care were a desire to control pain (62%), oncologist recommendation (58%), and coping support for family and friends (55%). CONCLUSION: Interventions should address knowledge and misconceptions, assess care needs, and facilitate communication between patients and oncologists about palliative care.

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and to provide online materials from a national quality improvement (QI) study to help other institutions to address local screening deficits. METHODS: This prospective, national QI study on Return-to-Screening enrolled 748 accredited cancer programs in the United States from April through June 2021. Local prepandemic and pandemic monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) were used to calculate the relative percent change in MTV to describe the monthly screening gap. RESULTS: The majority of facilities reported monthly screening deficits (colorectal cancer, 80.6% [n = 104/129]; cervical cancer, 69.0% [n = 20/29]; breast cancer, 55.3% [n = 241/436]; lung cancer, 44.6% [n = 98/220]). Overall, the median relative percent change in MTV ranged from -17.7% for colorectal cancer (interquartile range [IQR], -33.6% to -2.8%), -6.8% for cervical cancer (IQR, -29.4% to 1.7%), -1.6% for breast cancer (IQR, -9.6% to 7.0%), and 1.2% for lung cancer (IQR, -16.9% to 19.0%). Geographic differences were not observed. There were statistically significant differences in the percent change in MTV between institution types for colorectal cancer screening (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help facilities to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020. LAY SUMMARY: Question: How can the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on cancer screening be mitigated? FINDINGS: When national resources were provided, including methods to calculate local screening deficits, 748 cancer programs promptly enrolled in a national Return-to-Screening study, and the majority identified local screening deficits, most notably in colorectal cancer. Using these results, 814 quality improvement projects were initiated with the potential to add 70,000 screening tests in 2021. Meaning: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the online resources that we provide may help to close critical screening deficits.

Twenty-Five Years of Cancer Follow-Up; Is the Data Worth the Effort?

BACKGROUND: Substantial resources are dedicated to long-term follow-up within cancer registries; however, the completeness of these data is poorly characterized. Our objectives were to quantify long-term cancer follow-up data completeness and the effort required to collect these data using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). METHODS: To quantify data completeness, patients diagnosed with cancer in 1989 were identified in the NCDB and loss to follow-up rates were assessed for 25 years after diagnosis. To quantify data collection effort, patients diagnosed from 1989 to 2014 who were alive and eligible for follow-up in 2014 were identified and the effort to perform patient follow-up was obtained via a survey of tumor registrars. The effort to perform follow-up beyond various intervals after diagnosis was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 484,201 patients at 958 hospitals were diagnosed with cancer in 1989. After 5 years, 6.5% of patients were lost to follow-up (13.1% of living patients), 50.3% were deceased, and 43.2% had ongoing follow-up. After 15 years, 22.9% were lost to follow-up (68.7% of living patients), 66.7% were deceased, and 10.5% had ongoing follow-up. By 25 years, loss to follow-up increased to 28.6% (93.7% of living patients), 69.5% were deceased, and 1.9% had ongoing follow-up. In 2014, 522,838 h were spent performing follow-up for 2,091,353 patients at 1456 hospitals who were >15 years from their initial cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: While 5-year follow-up is excellent in the NCDB, loss to follow-up increases over time. The impact of curtailing data collection is under investigation and follow-up duration requirements will be re-evaluated.

Evaluating information loss in the National Cancer Database from cases lost to follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cancer registries must focus on data capture which returns value while reducing resource burden with minimal loss of data. Identifying the optimum length of follow-up data collection for patients with cancer achieves this goal. METHODS: A two-step analysis using entropy calculations to assess information gain for each follow-up year, and second-order differences to compare survival outcomes between the defined follow-up periods and lifetime follow-up. A total of 391 567 adult cases, deidentified in the National Cancer Database and diagnosed in 1989. Comparisons examined a subset of 61 908 lung cancer cases, 48 387 colon and rectal cancer cases, and 64 134 breast cancer cases in adults. A total of 4133 pediatric cases were diagnosed in 1989 examining 1065 leukemia cases and 494 lymphoma cases. RESULTS: Annual increases in information gain fell below 1% after 16 years of follow-up for adult cases and 9 years for pediatric cases. Comparison of second-order differences showed 62% of the comparisons were similar between 15 years and lifetime follow-up when examining restricted mean survival time. In addition, 90% of the comparisons were statistically similar when comparing hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Survival analysis using 15 years postdiagnosis follow-up showed minimal differences in information gain compared to lifetime follow-up.

Designing a Framework for Remote Cancer Care Through Community Co-design: Participatory Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent shifts to telemedicine and remote patient monitoring demonstrate the potential for new technology to transform health systems; yet, methods to design for inclusion and resilience are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to design and implement a participatory framework to produce effective health care solutions through co-design with diverse stakeholders. METHODS: We developed a design framework to cocreate solutions to locally prioritized health and communication problems focused on cancer care. The framework is premised on the framing and discovery of problems through community engagement and lead-user innovation with the hypothesis that diversity and inclusion in the co-design process generate more innovative and resilient solutions. Discovery, design, and development were implemented through structured phases with design studios at various locations in urban and rural Kentucky, including Appalachia, each building from prior work. In the final design studio, working prototypes were developed and tested. Outputs were assessed using the System Usability Scale as well as semistructured user feedback. RESULTS: We co-designed, developed, and tested a mobile app (myPath) and service model for distress surveillance and cancer care coordination following the LAUNCH (Linking and Amplifying User-Centered Networks through Connected Health) framework. The problem of awareness, navigation, and communication through cancer care was selected by the community after framing areas for opportunity based on significant geographic disparities in cancer and health burden resource and broadband access. The codeveloped digital myPath app showed the highest perceived combined usability (mean 81.9, SD 15.2) compared with the current gold standard of distress management for patients with cancer, the paper-based National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (mean 74.2, SD 15.8). Testing of the System Usability Scale subscales showed that the myPath app had significantly better usability than the paper Distress Thermometer (t63=2.611; P=.01), whereas learnability did not differ between the instruments (t63=-0.311; P=.76). Notable differences by patient and provider scoring and feedback were found. CONCLUSIONS: Participatory problem definition and community-based co-design, design-with methods, may produce more acceptable and effective solutions than traditional design-for approaches.

Lung Cancer in Young Adults: A Single-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVE: This single-center retrospective review examines the unique characteristics of young patients (ages 18 to 40 years) who were diagnosed as having non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at Markey Cancer Center, the only National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in the state of Kentucky. METHODS: This retrospective study examines adult patients with NSCLC who were between ages 18 and 40 at diagnosis. Patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2018 were included. The final cohort consisted of 35 patients. The data collected included patient demographic information, tumor topography, clinical stage, cell type, treatment information/dates, metastasis, and survival data. RESULTS: In total, 36 of 3246 total NSCLC cases treated at Markey Cancer Center from 2012 to 2018 were diagnosed in adults aged 18 to 40 (1.11%); 35 of these 36 patients were included in our cohort. The majority (22; 62.86%) presented at an advanced stage of disease (stage III or IV). Furthermore, our cohort consisted of a strong majority of female patients (24; 68.57%). The most common histological type was adenocarcinoma (14; 40.00%). The 5-year survival rate was 47% (standard error 9%). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer is rare in young patients; when present, often it presents at the advanced stage. Despite many diagnostic tools and treatment modalities available, long-term survival remains poor. Our experience showed a small proportion of patients with NSCLC aged 18 to 40 at diagnosis; among this unique patient population, there is a predominance of smokers, women, adenocarcinoma, and advanced disease.

Improving the Quality of Cancer Care in Community Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients treated in community hospitals receive less guideline-recommended care and experience poorer outcomes than those treated in academic medical centers or National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers. The Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) was designed to address this issue in Kentucky, the state with the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates in the U.S. METHODS: Using data obtained from the Kentucky Cancer Registry, the study evaluated the impact of patients treated in MCCAN hospitals on four evidence-based Commission on Cancer (CoC) quality measures using a before-and-after matched-cohort study design. Each group included 13 hospitals matched for bed size, cancer patient volume, community population, and region (Appalachian vs. non-Appalachian). Compliance with quality measures was assessed for the 3 years before the hospital joined MCCAN (T1) and the 3 years afterward (T2). RESULTS: In T1, the control hospitals demonstrated greater compliance with two quality measures than the MCCAN hospitals. In T2, the MCCAN hospitals achieved greater compliance in three measures than the control hospitals. From T1 to T2, the MCCAN hospitals significantly increased compliance on three measures (vs. 1 measure for the control hospitals). Although most of the hospitals were not accredited by the CoC in T1, 92% of the MCCAN hospitals had achieved accreditation by the end of T2 compared with 23% of the control hospitals. CONCLUSION: After the MCCAN hospitals joined the Network, their compliance with quality measures and achievement of CoC accreditation increased significantly compared with the control hospitals. The unique academic/community-collaboration model provided by MCCAN was able to make a significant impact on improvement of cancer care. Future research is needed to adapt and evaluate similar interventions in other states and regions.

Intrabronchial Valves for Air Leaks After Lobectomy, Segmentectomy, and Lung Volume Reduction Surgery.

PURPOSE: Air leaks are common after lobectomy, segmentectomy, and lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). This can increase post-operative morbidity, cost, and hospital length of stay. The management of post-pulmonary resection air leaks remains challenging. Minimally invasive effective interventions are necessary. The Spiration Valve System (SVS, Olympus/Spiration Inc., Redmond, WA, US) is approved by the FDA under humanitarian use exemption for management of prolonged air leaks. METHODS: This is a prospective multicenter registry of 39 patients with air leaks after lobectomy, segmentectomy, and LVRS managed with an intention to use bronchoscopic SVS to resolve air leaks. RESULTS: Bronchoscopic SVS placement was feasible in 82.1% of patients (32/39 patients) and 90 valves were placed with a median of 2 valves per patient (mean of 2.7 ± 1.5 valves, range of 1 to 7 valves). Positive response to SVS placement was documented in 76.9% of all patients (30/39 patients) and in 93.8% of patients when SVS placement was feasible (30/32 patients). Air leaks ultimately resolved when SVS placement was feasible in 87.5% of patients (28/32 patients), after a median of 2.5 days (mean ± SD of 8.9 ± 12.4 days). Considering all patients with an intention to treat analysis, bronchoscopic SVS procedure likely contributed to resolution of air leaks in 71.8% of patients (28/39 patients). The post-procedure median hospital stay was 4 days (mean 6.0 ± 6.1 days). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective registry adds to the growing body of literature supporting feasible and effective management of air leaks utilizing one-way valves.

Lung cancer incidence and the strength of municipal smoke-free ordinances.

BACKGROUND: Smoke-free laws reduce disease prevalence. The impact of municipal smoke-free laws on lung cancer incidence in Kentucky was examined. The authors hypothesized that lung cancer incidence rates would be associated with the strength of smoke-free laws. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of 83,727 Kentucky residents aged ≥ 50 years who were newly diagnosed with lung cancer from 1995 to 2014. In 2014, 33 municipalities had 1 or more smoke-free laws. County-level characteristics included adult smoking rate, sex, race/ethnicity, income, physician supply, observed radon values, and rurality. RESULTS: Individuals living in communities with comprehensive smoke-free laws were 7.9% less likely than those living in communities without smoke-free protections to be diagnosed with lung cancer. The difference in lung cancer incidence between counties with moderate/weak laws and those without laws was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive smoke-free laws were associated with fewer new cases of lung cancer, whereas weak or moderate smoke-free laws did not confer the same benefit. One hundred percent smoke-free laws, covering all workers and the public with few or no exceptions, may be key in reducing new cases of lung cancer. Cancer 2018;124:374-80. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The dynamics of deferred decision.

Decision makers are often unable to choose between the options that they are offered. In these settings they typically defer their decision, that is, delay the decision to a later point in time or avoid the decision altogether. In this paper, we outline eight behavioral findings regarding the causes and consequences of choice deferral that cognitive theories of decision making should be able to capture. We show that these findings can be accounted for by a deferral-based time limit applied to existing sequential sampling models of preferential choice. Our approach to modeling deferral as a time limit in a sequential sampling model also makes a number of novel predictions regarding the interactions between choice probabilities, deferral probabilities, and decision times, and we confirm these predictions in an experiment. Choice deferral is a key feature of everyday decision making, and our paper illustrates how established theoretical approaches can be used to understand the cognitive underpinnings of this important behavioral phenomenon.

Responses to irrational actions in action observation and mentalising networks of the human brain.

By observing other people, we can often infer goals and motivations behind their actions. This study examines the role of the action observation network (AON) and the mentalising network (MZN) in the perception of rational and irrational actions. Past studies in this area report mixed results, so the present paper uses new stimuli which precisely control motion path, the social form of the actor and the rationality of the action. A cluster in medial prefrontal cortex and a large cluster in the right inferior parietal lobule extending to the temporoparietal junction distinguished observation of irrational from rational actions. Activity within the temporoparietal region also correlated on a trial-by-trial basis with each participant's judgement of action rationality. These findings demonstrate that observation of another person performing an irrational action engages both action observation and mentalising networks. Our results advance current theories of action comprehension and the roles of action observation and mentalising networks in this process.

Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Promising Implementation Strategies for Improving Quality of Smoking Cessation Support in Accredited Cancer Programs of the American College of Surgeons.

PURPOSE: Persistent smoking is associated with poor outcomes in cancer care. It is strongly recommended that oncology care providers provide cessation support; however, there is limited information about smoking cessation assessment and treatment patterns in routine oncology practice. METHODS: Leaders of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (National Accredited Program for Breast Cancer) elected to participate in a national quality improvement initiative (Just ASK) focused on smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care. Online baseline survey responses were received from 762 accredited programs. RESULTS: Most programs reported regularly asking about smoking (89.9%), documenting smoking history and current use (85.8%), and advising patients to quit (71.2%). However, less than half of programs reported documenting a smoking cessation treatment plan (41.7%). Even fewer programs reported regularly assisting patients with quitting (41.3%), providing self-help information (27.2%), providing individual counseling (18.2%), and referring patients to an affiliated tobacco treatment program (26.1%) or external Quitline (28.5%). Very few programs reported regularly prescribing medications (17.6%). Principal barriers to tobacco treatment delivery were lack of staff training (68.8%), lack of designated specialists (61.9%), perceived patient resistance (58.3%), lack of available resources (53.3%), competing clinical priorities (50.9%), inadequate program funding (40.6%), insufficient staff time (42.4%), and inadequate reimbursement (31.0%). CONCLUSION: Although programs reported a high rate of smoking assessment, critical gaps in advising and assisting patients with cessation were found. Improving equitable delivery of smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care will require addressing key organizational and provider barriers for implementation of best practices.

Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer.

Importance: Since 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability. Objective: To determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023. Exposure: CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Questions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category. Results: There were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

Developing national cancer survivorship standards to inform quality of care in the United States using a consensus approach.

PURPOSE: To develop United States (US) standards for survivorship care that informs (1) essential health system policy and process components and (2) evaluation of the quality of survivorship care. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute and the Department of Veterans Affairs led a review to identify indicators of quality cancer survivorship care in the domains of health system policy, process, and evaluation/assessment. A series of three virtual consensus meetings with survivorship care and research experts and advocates was conducted to rate the importance of the indicators and refine the top indicators. The final set of standards was developed, including ten indicators in each domain. RESULTS: Prioritized items were survivor-focused, including processes to both assess and manage physical, psychological, and social issues, and evaluation of patient outcomes and experiences. Specific indicators focused on developing a business model for sustaining survivorship care and collecting relevant business metrics (e.g., healthcare utilization, downstream revenue) to show value of survivorship care to health systems. CONCLUSIONS: The National Standards for Cancer Survivorship Care can be used by health systems to guide development of new survivorship care programs or services or to assess alignment and enhance services in existing survivorship programs. Given the variety of settings providing care to survivors, it is necessary for health systems to adapt these standards based on factors including age-specific needs, cancer types, treatments received, and health system resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With over 18 million cancer survivors in the United States, many of whom experience varied symptoms and unmet needs, it is essential for health systems to have a comprehensive strategy to provide ongoing care. The US National Standards for Survivorship Care should serve as a blueprint for what survivors and their families can anticipate after a cancer diagnosis to address their needs.

Value representations by rank order in a distributed network of varying context dependency.

We report the results of a human fMRI experiment investigating the influence of context upon value judgement. Trials were separated into high and low value blocks such that it is possible to investigate the effect of a change in surrounding trials upon the encoding of financial value. The ventral striatum was dependent upon "local context", with its activity representing the current stimulus' relative value compared only to items in the current block. Conversely the ventral medial Pre-Frontal Cortex and Anterior Cingulate Cortex respond independently of block but also do not represent the absolute values of stimuli. Our use of stimuli values with a non-linear distribution allow us to identify the pattern as representing rank order. This has wide reaching implications for research on neuroeconomics, decision making and reward representation, showing that financial value is not explicitly represented within the brain.

A query theory account of the attraction effect.

We provide novel support for Query Theory, a reason-based decision framework, extending it to multialternative choices and applying it to the classic phenomenon known as the attraction effect. In Experiment 1 (N = 261), we generalised the two key metrics used in Query Theory from binary to multialternative choices and found that reasons supporting the target option were generated earlier and in greater quantity than those supporting the competitor, as predicted by the theory. In Experiment 2 (N = 703), we investigated the causal relationships between reasoning and choices by exogenously manipulating the order in which participants generated their reasons. As predicted, the size of the attraction effect was a function of this query order manipulation. We also introduced a bidirectional reason coding protocol to measure the valence of reasons, which confirmed support for Query Theory. We suggest the Query Theory framework can be useful for studying the high-level deliberation processes behind multialternative choices.