IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v15y1995i1p4-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cancer Patients' Decision Making and Trial-entry Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas
  • M. June McGreal
  • Elaine C. Thiel

Abstract

The study purpose was to determine whether the framing of treatment information influenced patients' reported preferences for participating in treatment decision making and for trial entry. Ninety cancer patients read either neutrally-, positively-, or negatively-framed infor mation about a chemotherapeutic treatment, then indicated their preferences for participating in the treatment decision, and whether they would participate in a clinical trial incorporating this protocol. There was no difference across information groups in preferences for partici pating in treatment decision making or willingness to enter such a clinical trial. Preference for participation in treatment decision making was significantly related to age (t = 2.54; p = 0.022), sex (x 2 = 3.89; p = 0.05), and education (t = 2.54; p = 0.018); trial entry preferences were unrelated to these demographic variables. These results imply that, in this clinical context, attitudes towards participation in treatment decision making may be asso ciated with characteristics of the patient, and attitudes towards trial entry may be dependent upon the clinical characteristics of a particular trial, but neither set of attitudes is influenced by the framing of protocol information. Key words: framing effect; patients' preferences; quality of life; decision making; clinical trials. (Med Decis Making 1995;15:4-12)

Suggested Citation

  • Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & M. June McGreal & Elaine C. Thiel, 1995. "Cancer Patients' Decision Making and Trial-entry Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(1), pages 4-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:15:y:1995:i:1:p:4-12
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9501500103
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9501500103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A. & McGreal, M. J. & Thiel, E. C. & Fine, S. & Erlichman, C., 1991. "Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: Measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 35-42, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Jorge E. Martinez Perez & Jose María Abellán Perpiñán, 2006. "The influence of the Ratio Bias phenomenon on the elicitation of Standard Gamble utilities," Working Papers 06.16, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    2. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & J. Michael Paterson & Judy A. Carter & Antoni Basinski & Martin G. Myers & Gordon D. Hardacre & Earl V. Dunn & Ralph B. D’Agostino & Philip A. Wolf & C. David Naylor, 2002. "Primary Prevention Drug Therapy: Can It Meet Patients’ Requirements for Reduced Risk?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(4), pages 326-339, August.
    3. Myra E. Percy & Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas, 1995. "Assessing Preferences about the DNR Order," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(3), pages 209-216, August.
    4. Birthe Andrea Lehmann & Lara Lindert & Silke Ohlmeier & Lara Schlomann & Holger Pfaff & Kyung-Eun Choi, 2020. "“And Then He Got into the Wrong Group”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Effects of Randomization in Recruitment to a Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-16, March.
    5. Brett Hauber & Joshua Coulter, 2020. "Using the Threshold Technique to Elicit Patient Preferences: An Introduction to the Method and an Overview of Existing Empirical Applications," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 31-46, February.
    6. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & J. Ivan Williams & Linda Levy & C.D. Naylor, 1996. "Using a Trade-off Technique to Assess Patients' Treatment Preferences for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 262-272, August.
    7. Malcolm Man-Son-Hing & Brian F. Gage & Alan A. Montgomery & Alistair Howitt & Richard Thomson & P. J. Devereaux & Joanne Protheroe & Tom Fahey & David Armstrong & Andreas Laupacis, 2005. "Preference-Based Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Clinical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 548-559, September.
    8. Verheggen, Frank W. S. M. & van Wijmen, Frans C. B., 1996. "Informed consent in clinical trials," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 131-153, May.
    9. Annette M. O'Connor & Peter Tugwell & George A. Wells & Tom Elmslie & Elaine Jolly & Gary Hollingworth & Ruth Mcpherson & Elizabeth Drake & Wilma Hopman & Thomas Mackenzie, 1998. "Randomized Trial of a Portable, Self-administered Decision Aid for Postmenopausal Women Considering Long-term Preventive Hormone Therapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(3), pages 295-303, August.
    10. 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:sae:medema:v:15:y:1995:i:1:p:4-12. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.