IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i3p432-436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Informing Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen Peters
  • P. Sol Hart
  • Liana Fraenkel

Abstract

Background. Given the importance of effective patient communication, findings about influences on risk perception in nonmedical domains need replication in medical domains. Objective. To examine whether numeracy influences risk perceptions when different information frames and number formats are used to present medication risks. Methods. The authors manipulated the frame and number format of risk information in a 3 (frame: positive, negative, combined) × 2 (number format: frequency, percentage) design. Participants from an Internet sample ( N = 298), randomly assigned to condition, responded to a single, hypothetical scenario. The main effects and interactions of numeracy, framing, and number format on risk perception were measured. Results. Participants given the positive frame perceived the medication as less risky than those given the negative frame. Mean risk perceptions for the combined frame fell between the positive and negative frames. Numeracy did not moderate these framing effects. Risk perceptions also varied by number format and numeracy, with less-numerate participants given risk information in a percentage format perceiving the medication as less risky than when given risk information in a frequency format; highly numerate participants perceived similar risks in both formats. The generalizability of the findings is limited due to the use of non-patients, presented a hypothetical scenario. Given the design, one cannot know whether observed differences would translate into clinically significant differences in patient behaviors. Conclusions. Frequency formats appear to increase risk perceptions over percentage formats for less-numerate respondents. Health communicators need to be aware that different formats generate different risk perceptions among patients varying in numeracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen Peters & P. Sol Hart & Liana Fraenkel, 2011. "Informing Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 432-436, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:3:p:432-436
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10391672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10391672
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10391672?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. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Paul Slovic & Ellen M. Peters, 2009. "The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decisionmakers Varying in Numeracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(10), pages 1473-1488, October.
    3. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. L. Robin Keller & Yitong Wang, 2017. "Information Presentation in Decision and Risk Analysis: Answered, Partly Answered, and Unanswered Questions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1132-1145, June.
    2. Laura Colautti & Alice Cancer & Sara Magenes & Alessandro Antonietti & Paola Iannello, 2022. "Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Magda Hassan & Jaideep Prabhu & Rajesh Chandy & Om Narasimhan, 2023. "When Bulldozers Loom: Informal Property Rights and Marketing Practice Innovation Among Emerging Market Microentrepreneurs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 137-165, January.
    4. Marieke Huysentruyt & Daniel Read, 2010. "How do people value extended warranties? Evidence from two field surveys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 197-218, June.
    5. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    6. Alain Samson & Benjamin G. Voyer, 2012. "Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 2(2), pages 48-71, December.
    7. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    8. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    9. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," SciencePo Working papers Main halshs-02050514, HAL.
    10. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    11. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    12. Prokudina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe, 2015. "Does Confidence Predict Out-of-Domain Effort?," Discussion Paper 2015-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    13. Noussair, C.N. & Tucker, S. & Xu, Yilong, 2014. "A Future Market Reduces Bubbles but Allows Greater Profit for More Sophisticated Traders," Other publications TiSEM 43ded173-9eee-48a4-8a15-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    15. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    16. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    17. Francis Bloch & Bhaskar Dutta & Stéphane Robin & Min Zhu, 2016. "The formation of partnerships in social networks," Post-Print halshs-01421347, HAL.
    18. Besedes, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Quintanar, Sarah & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2011. "Free-Riding and Performance in Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Groups," MPRA Paper 33948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Jorrat, Diego & Alfonso-Costillo, Antonio & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2020. "Exposure to the Covid-19 pandemic and generosity," MPRA Paper 103389, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.

    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:31:y:2011:i:3:p:432-436. 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.