IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i1p39-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Further Explorations of Medical Decisions for Individuals and for Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Michael L. Dekay
  • Carol A.E. Nickerson
  • Peter A. Ubel
  • John C. Hershey
  • Mark D. Spranca
  • David A. Asch

Abstract

Background. Important discrepancies between clinical practice and health policy may be related to the ways in which physicians and others make decisions about individuals and groups. Previous research has found that physicians and laypersons asked to consider an individual patient generally make different decisions than those asked to consider a group of comparable patients, but this discrepancy has not been observed in more recent studies. This study was designed to explore possible reasons for these findings. Methods. Prospective jurors ( N = 1,013) each made a recommendation regarding a risky treatment for an incurable blood condition. Perspective (individual vs group) was crossed with uncertainty frame (probability vs frequency) and response wording (original vs revised) in a 2 x 2 x 2 between-participants design. Results. When the strength of participants' recommendations was considered, the effects of perspective, uncertainty frame, and response wording were not statistically significant. When recommendations were dichotomized, participants in the revised-response-wording conditions were more likely to recommend treatment to the group than to the individual. Conclusions. These results conflict with previous findings for this scenario and suggest that reported differences between decisions for individuals and decisions for groups are not robust. Key words: decision making; expected utility theory; practice guidelines; risk; survey research. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:39-44)

Suggested Citation

  • Michael L. Dekay & Carol A.E. Nickerson & Peter A. Ubel & John C. Hershey & Mark D. Spranca & David A. Asch, 2000. "Further Explorations of Medical Decisions for Individuals and for Groups," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 39-44, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:1:p:39-44
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000105?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:134-145 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Michael L. DeKay & John C. Hershey & Mark D. Spranca, & Peter A. Ubel & David A. Asch, 2006. "Are medical treatments for individuals and groups like single-play and multiple-play gambles?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 134-145, November.

    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:20:y:2000:i:1:p:39-44. 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: 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.