IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i2p206-215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Physicians Provide Statistical Information about Antidepressants to Hypothetical Patients?

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfgang Gaissmaier
  • Britta L. Anderson
  • Jay Schulkin

Abstract

Background. Little is known about how physicians provide statistical information to patients, which is important for informed consent. Methods. In a survey, obstetricians and gynecologists ( N = 142) received statistical information about the benefit and side effects of an antidepressant. They received information in various formats, including event rates (antidepressant v. placebo), absolute risks, and relative risks. Participants had to imagine 2 hypothetical patients, 1 for whom they believed the drug to be safe and effective and 1 for whom they did not, and select the information they would give those patients. We assessed whether the information they selected for each patient was complete, transparent, interpretable, or persuasive (i.e., to nudge patients toward a particular option) and compared physicians who gave both patients the same information with those who gave both patients different information. Results. A similar proportion of physicians (roughly 25% each) selected information that was 1) complete and transparent, 2) complete but not transparent, 3) not interpretable for the patient because necessary comparative information was missing, or 4) suited for nudging. Physicians who gave both patients the same information (61% of physicians) more often selected at least complete information, even if it was often not transparent. Physicians who gave both patients different information (39% of physicians), in contrast, more often selected information that was suited for nudging in line with the belief they were asked to imagine. A limitation is that scenarios were hypothetical. Conclusions. Most physicians did not provide complete and transparent information. Clinicians who presented consistent information to different patients tended to present complete information, whereas those who varied what information they chose to present appeared more prone to nudging.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Britta L. Anderson & Jay Schulkin, 2014. "How Do Physicians Provide Statistical Information about Antidepressants to Hypothetical Patients?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(2), pages 206-215, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:2:p:206-215
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13501720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13501720
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13501720?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. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    2. Douglas G. Altman & J. Martin Bland, 1991. "Improving Doctors' Understanding of Statistics," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 154(2), pages 223-248, March.
    3. Garcia-Retamero, R. & Galesic, M., 2009. "Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: A cross-cultural comparison," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(12), pages 2196-2202.
    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. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    3. Stefania Pighin & Lucia Savadori & Elisa Barilli & Rino Rumiati & Sara Bonalumi & Maurizio Ferrari & Laura Cremonesi, 2013. "Using Comparison Scenarios to Improve Prenatal Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 48-58, January.
    4. Jie, Yun, 2020. "Responding to requests for help: Effects of payoff schemes with small monetary units," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. Charles Changchuan Jiang & Liana Fraenkel, 2017. "The Influence of Varying Cost Formats on Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 17-26, January.
    6. McDaniels, Timothy L. & Gregory, Robin & Arvai, Joseph & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2003. "Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 33-46, August.
    7. Peggy J. Liu & Kelly L. Haws & Karen Scherr & Joseph P. Redden & James R. Bettman & Gavan J. Fitzsimons, 2019. "The Primacy of “What” over “How Much”: How Type and Quantity Shape Healthiness Perceptions of Food Portions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3353-3381, July.
    8. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Chung, Sol & Agnew, Julie & Bateman, Hazel & Eckert, Christine & Liu, Junhao & Thorp, Susan, 2024. "The impact of mortgage broker use on borrower confusion and preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 229-247.
    10. Ch'ng, Kean Siang & Loke, Yiing Jia, 2010. "Inconsistency of fairness evaluation in simulated labot market," MPRA Paper 21527, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    12. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    13. Brice Mayag & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2009. "A characterization of the 2-additive Choquet integral through cardinal information," Post-Print halshs-00445132, HAL.
    14. Newman, George E. & Jeremy Shen, Y., 2012. "The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 973-983.
    15. Mao, Wen, 2016. "Sometimes “Fee” Is Better Than “Free”: Token Promotional Pricing and Consumer Reactions to Price Promotion Offering Product Upgrades," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 173-184.
    16. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    17. Huber, Joel & Viscusi, W. Kip & Bell, Jason, 2008. "Reference dependence in iterative choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 143-152, July.
    18. Weber, Martin & Mueller-Dethard, Jan, 2020. "The Portfolio Composition Effect," CEPR Discussion Papers 15012, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Rodolfo Vázquez-Casielles & Víctor Iglesias & Concepción Varela-Neira, 2010. "Service recovery, satisfaction and behaviour intentions: analysis of compensation and social comparison communication strategies," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 83-103, July.
    20. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.

    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:34:y:2014:i:2:p:206-215. 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.