IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i5_supplp77-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Feeling Informed Relate to Being Informed? The DECISIONS Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Karen R. Sepucha
  • Angela Fagerlin
  • Mick P. Couper
  • Carrie A. Levin
  • Eleanor Singer
  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

Abstract

Background An important part of delivering high-quality, patient-centered care is making sure patients are informed about decisions regarding their health care. The objective was to examine whether patients’ perceptions about how informed they were about common medical decisions are related to their ability to answer various knowledge questions. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted November 2006 to May 2007 of a national sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing. Participants were 2575 English-speaking US adults aged 40 and older who had made 1 of 9 medication, cancer screening, or elective surgery decisions within the previous 2 years. Participants rated how informed they felt on a scale of 0 (not at all informed) to 10 (extremely well-informed), answered decision-specific knowledge questions, and completed standard demographic questions. Results Overall, 36% felt extremely well informed (10), 30% felt well informed (8–9), and 33% felt not at all to somewhat informed (0–7). Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed no overall relationship between knowledge scores and perceptions of being extremely well informed (odds ratio [OR] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63–1.42, P = 0.78). Three patterns emerged for decision types: a negative relationship for cancer screening decisions (OR = 0.58, CI 0.33–1.02, P = 0.06), no relationship for medication decisions (OR = 0.99, CI 0.54–1.83, P = 0.98), and a positive relationship for surgery decisions (OR = 3.07, 95% CI 0.90–10.54, P = 0.07). Trust in the doctor was associated with feeling extremely well-informed for all 3 types of decisions. Lower education and lower income were also associated with feeling extremely well informed for medication and screening decisions. Retrospective survey data are subject to recall bias, and participants may have had different perspectives or more factual knowledge closer to the time of the decision. Conclusions Patients facing common medical decisions are not able to accurately assess how well informed they are. Clinicians need to be proactive in providing adequate information to patients and testing patients’ understanding to ensure informed decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen R. Sepucha & Angela Fagerlin & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "How Does Feeling Informed Relate to Being Informed? The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 77-84, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5_suppl:p:77-84
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10379647
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10379647
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10379647?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. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Mick P. Couper & Eleanor Singer & Carrie A. Levin & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Sonja Ziniel & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2010. "The DECISIONS Study: A Nationwide Survey of United States Adults Regarding 9 Common Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 20-34, September.
    2. Yates, J. Frank & Lee, Ju-Whei & Shinotsuka, Hiromi & Patalano, Andrea L. & Sieck, Winston R., 1998. "Cross-Cultural Variations in Probability Judgment Accuracy: Beyond General Knowledge Overconfidence?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 89-117, May.
    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. Maria Polikandrioti & John Goudevenos & Lampros K. Michalis & Ioannis G. Koutelekos & Elpida Georgiadi & Constantine Karakostas & Moses Elisaf, 2016. "Association Between Characteristics of Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients With Their Needs," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(6), pages 1-95, June.
    2. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Mick P. Couper & Eleanor Singer & Carrie A. Levin & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Sonja Ziniel & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2010. "The DECISIONS Study: A Nationwide Survey of United States Adults Regarding 9 Common Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 20-34, September.
    3. Fullard, Joshua & Sen, Sonkurt, 2022. "Tell me who you are and I will give you my consent: a light-touch intervention on consent to data linkage," ISER Working Paper Series 2022-10, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    4. Peder A. Halvorsen, 2010. "What Information Do Patients Need to Make a Medical Decision?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 11-13, September.
    5. Richard M. Hoffman & Carmen L. Lewis & Michael P. Pignone & Mick P. Couper & Michael J. Barry & Joann G. Elmore & Carrie A. Levin & John Van Hoewyk & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Decision-Making Processes for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screening: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 53-64, September.

    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. Michael Muthukrishna & Joseph Henrich & Wataru Toyokawa & Takeshi Hamamura & Tatsuya Kameda & Steven J Heine, 2018. "Overconfidence is universal? Elicitation of Genuine Overconfidence (EGO) procedure reveals systematic differences across domain, task knowledge, and incentives in four populations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-30, August.
    2. Greg Barron & Eldad Yechiam, 2009. "The coexistence of overestimation and underweighting of rare events and the contingent recency effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 447-460, October.
    3. Fanni Rencz & Béla Tamási & Valentin Brodszky & László Gulácsi & Miklós Weszl & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 43-55, June.
    4. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.
    5. Kremena Bachmann & Thorsten Hens, 2016. "Is there Swissness in investment decision behavior and investment competence?," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 30(3), pages 233-275, August.
    6. Yates, J. Frank & de Oliveira, Stephanie, 2016. "Culture and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 106-118.
    7. Amanda J. Dillard & Mick P. Couper & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Perceived Risk of Cancer and Patient Reports of Participation in Decisions about Screening: The DECISIONS Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 96-105, September.
    8. Josephine Mwendia Njagi & Samuel Muli Muli, 2020. "Influence of Supply Chain Integration Practices on thePerformance ofManufacturing Firms inKenya aCase ofKenya Breweries Limited," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 10(1), pages 35-57, January.
    9. Newark, Daniel A., 2014. "Indecision and the construction of self," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 162-174.
    10. Aukutsionek, Sergei P. & Belianin, Alexis V., 2001. "Quality of forecasts and business performance: A survey study of Russian managers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 661-692, October.
    11. Simon, Mark & Shrader, Rodney C., 2012. "Entrepreneurial actions and optimistic overconfidence: The role of motivated reasoning in new product introductions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 291-309.
    12. Riedel, Nadine & Stüber, Robert, 2019. "Overearning – Revisited," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    13. Venkata Narasimha Chary Mushinada & Venkata Subrahmanya Sarma Veluri, 2020. "Self-attribution, Overconfidence and Dynamic Market Volatility in Indian Stock Market," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 21(4), pages 970-989, August.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:447-460 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Peder A. Halvorsen, 2010. "What Information Do Patients Need to Make a Medical Decision?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 11-13, September.
    16. Wallsten, Thomas S. & Gu, Hongbin, 2003. "Distinguishing choice and subjective probability estimation processes: Implications for theories of judgment and for cross-cultural comparisons," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 111-123, January.
    17. Nishwa Iqbal Dar & Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah & Zeeshan Ahmed, 2021. "Behavioral Cost of Managerial Decisions Under Risk Perception and Culture: A Comparative Study Between the United States and Pakistan," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    18. Mouna Abbes, 2013. "Does Overconfidence Bias Explain Volatility During the Global Financial Crisis?," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 19(3), pages 291-312, February.
    19. Jie Michael Guo & Qian He & Jiayuan Xin & Jia Liu, 2020. "Managerial overconfidence and M%A performance: evidence from China," International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(3), pages 342-360.
    20. Illiashenko, Pavlo & Laidroo, Laivi, 2020. "National culture and bank risk-taking: Contradictory case of individualism," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    21. Don A. Moore & Samuel A. Swift & Angela Minster & Barbara Mellers & Lyle Ungar & Philip Tetlock & Heather H. J. Yang & Elizabeth R. Tenney, 2017. "Confidence Calibration in a Multiyear Geopolitical Forecasting Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3552-3565, 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:30:y:2010:i:5_suppl:p:77-84. 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.