IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v18y1998i4p406-411.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes of Obstetricians and Gynecologists toward Hormone Replacement Therapy

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Baron
  • Gerald B. Holzman
  • Jay Schulkin

Abstract

Objective. To determine the attitudes of obstetricians and gynecologists toward hor mone replacement therapy (HRT), and the beliefs and intuitions that affected those attitudes. Design. A questionnaire was sent to 1,000 gynecologists in the United States; 328 replies were received. The questionnaire asked about effects of HRT, practices concerning HRT, and decisions in hypothetical scenarios. Results. The re spondents strongly favored HRT, and they were well informed about its effects on osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, and breast cancer. They were aware of conflict ing findings concerning breast cancer. The strength of their recommendation of HRT was sensitive to patient differences in risk factors. The respondents also showed four biases hypothesized to cause resistance to HRT: omission bias (more concern about harmful acts than harmful omissions); proportionality bias (attention to relative risk rather than risk differences); naturalness bias (preference for the natural); and ambi guity (avoiding options with missing information). Proportion bias, naturalness bias, and (weakly) omission bias were related to less favorable attitudes toward HRT. Con clusion. Although specialists are highly favorable toward HRT in general, some neg ativity toward HRT may result from decision biases. Key words: hormone replacement; estrogen; decision making; biases. (Med Decis Making 1998;18:406-411)

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Baron & Gerald B. Holzman & Jay Schulkin, 1998. "Attitudes of Obstetricians and Gynecologists toward Hormone Replacement Therapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 406-411, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:18:y:1998:i:4:p:406-411
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9801800408
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9801800408?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. John C. Hershey & Jonathan Baron, 1987. "Clinical Reasoning and Cognitive Processes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 7(4), pages 203-211, December.
    2. Baron, Jonathan, 1997. "Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 301-309, May-June.
    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. Cao, Yu & Li, Heng, 2023. "Everything has a limit: How intellectual humility lowers the preference for naturalness as reflected in drug choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    2. Heather P. Lacey & Steven C. Lacey & Prerna Dayal & Caroline Forest & Dana Blasi, 2023. "Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 417-429, May.
    3. Li-Jun Ji & Courtney M. Lappas & Xin-qiang Wang & Brian P. Meier, 2023. "The Naturalness Bias Influences Drug and Vaccine Decisions across Cultures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(2), pages 252-262, February.

    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. Moore, Don A. & Cain, Daylian M., 2007. "Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 197-213, July.
    2. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    3. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan, 2018. "The benefits of avoiding cancer (or dying from cancer): Evidence from a four- country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 249-262.
    4. Kirill Gavrilov, 2013. "Risk, psychophysical numbing and value of individual and community lives: an empirical study," HSE Working papers WP BRP 09/PSY/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:397-406 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Scott K. Aberegg & Hal Arkes & Peter B. Terry, 2006. "Failure to Adopt Beneficial Therapies Caused by Bias in Medical Evidence Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(6), pages 575-582, November.
    8. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Angela Fagerlin & Peter A. Ubel, 2010. "A Demonstration of ‘‘Less Can Be More’’ in Risk Graphics," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 661-671, November.
    9. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    10. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2002. "Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 329-342.
    11. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2018. "A novel approach to estimating the demand value of public safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 285-305.
    12. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2011. "Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 638-650, October.
    13. Jennifer Amsterlaw & Brian Zikmund-Fisher & Angela Fagerlin & Peter A. Ubel, 2006. "Can avoidance of complications lead to biased healthcare decisions?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 64-75, July.
    14. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    15. Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Luis Pinto Prades, 2007. "El Valor Monetario de la Vida Estadística en España a través de las Preferencias Declaradas," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 183(4), pages 125-144, december.
    16. Friedrich, James & Lucas, Gale & Hodell, Emily, 2005. "Proportional reasoning, framing effects, and affirmative action: Is six of one really half a dozen of another in university admissions?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 195-215, November.
    17. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen & Jørgen Nexøe & Jesper Bo Nielsen, 2003. "How Do Individuals Apply Risk Information When Choosing Among Health Care Interventions?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 697-704, August.
    18. Kjær, Trine & Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2016. "An investigation into procedure (in)variance in the valuation of mortality risk reductions," DaCHE discussion papers 2016:4, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    19. Gurmankin Levy, Andrea & Hershey, John C., 2006. "Distorting the probability of treatment success to justify treatment decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 52-58, September.
    20. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    21. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    22. Christoph M. Rheinberger & Felix Schläpfer & Michael Lobsiger, 2017. "A Novel Approach to Estimating the Demand Value of Road Safety," Working Papers 2017.15, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

    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:18:y:1998:i:4:p:406-411. 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.