IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v32y1991i6p725-731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients: Is there 'noise' on the line?

Author

Listed:
  • Sutherland, H. J.
  • Lockwood, G. A.
  • Tritchler, D. L.
  • Sem, F.
  • Brooks, L.
  • Till, J. E.

Abstract

The objective was to examine the way that cancer patients translate verbal descriptors of probability into numerical estimates. A list of words commonly used on consent forms to describe the likelihood for benefits or risks of therapies was provided to 100 cancer patients. Two formats, paper/pencil or computer, were used to provide the list of words. Two methods, magnitude estimation and linear analogue scaling, were used to obtain probability estimates for each word. In addition, two scenarios were developed to study 'context effects' on numerical interpretations of verbal descriptions of probability. All patients provided numerical values for the words on two occasions, separated by one week, and two interviewers collected the data. Regardless of method or format, each word elicited widely variable numerical interpretations. An ANOVA model, including patient, word, interviewer, time, method and format, indicated that patient and interviewer produced the major effects on probability estimates. Agreement between methods and across time was good. Paper/pencil and computer formats yielded similar results. Context effects did not appear to influence the numerical probabilities elicited by the 2 scenarios. It was concluded that, within this group of patients, there was no consensus about numerical meaning of a given word, and that interviewers can systematically influence numerical interpretations. There appears to be a great deal of 'noise' in this particular line of communication between patients and health professionals.

Suggested Citation

  • Sutherland, H. J. & Lockwood, G. A. & Tritchler, D. L. & Sem, F. & Brooks, L. & Till, J. E., 1991. "Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients: Is there 'noise' on the line?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 725-731, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:6:p:725-731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(91)90152-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adrian Edwards & Kerenza Hood & Elaine Matthews & Daphne Russell & Ian Russell & Jacqueline Barker & Michael Bloor & Philip Burnard & Judith Covey & Roisin Pill & Clare Wilkinson & Nigel Stott, 2000. "The Effectiveness of One-to-one Risk-communication Interventions in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 290-297, July.
    2. Abel, Gregory A. & Glinert, Lewis H., 2008. "Chemotherapy as language: Sound symbolism in cancer medication names," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(8), pages 1863-1869, April.
    3. Michael D. Brundage & Judith R. Davidson & William J. Mackillop & Deb Feldman-Stewart & Patti Groome, 1998. "Using a Treatment-tradeoff Method to Elicit Preferences for the Treatment of Locally Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(3), pages 256-267, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:6:p:725-731. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.