Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mazur, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hickam, D. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mazur, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hickam, D. H.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Choosing a Doctor or Health Care Service
*Family Issues
*Talking With Your Doctor
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Effect of Physicians' Explanations on Patients' Treatment Preferences

Five-year Survival Data

Dennis J. Mazur

David H. Hickam

Objective: To evaluate the influence of physicians' explanations on patients' choices. Setting: A university-based Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Participants: 136 patients seen in a continuity-care general medicine clinic. Measurements and Results: Patients were randomized to two groups [Limited Explanation (LE) and Extensive Explanation (EE)] and asked to choose between two alternative treatments (differing in short-term vs long-term survival benefits) for an unidentified medical condition, based on the information given in the explanations. LE consisted of a brief orientation to graphs summarizing the treatment results, while EE consisted of a detailed verbal description of the graphs. Significantly (p < 0.001) more patients receiving EE changed their preferences across three pairs of five-year survival curves, compared with patients receiving LE. Of the patients receiving EE, 57% reported either medium-term (year 0-to-intercept or intercept-to-year 5) data or the average life expectancy for the five-year period contained in the curves (ALE-5) as most influencing their decision making; whereas 78% of patients receiving LE reported only endpoint (year 0 or year 5) data as most influencing their preferences. Conclusions: The patients' treatment preferences for long-term vs short-term survival benefits were influenced by the amounts of verbal explanation provided to them about five-year survival graphs summarizing treatment results. The patients appeared to minimize the importance of medium-range data when those data were not specifically pointed out to them. Key words: cognitive biases; framing effect; informed consent; medical decision making; preferences; five-year survival; life expectancy. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:255-258)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 14, No. 3, 255-258 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400307


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
B. J. Zikmund-Fisher, D. M. Smith, P. A. Ubel, and A. Fagerlin
Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations
Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 663 - 671.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
I. M. Lipkus
Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations
Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 696 - 713.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
J. S. Ancker, Y. Senathirajah, R. Kukafka, and J. B. Starren
Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., November 1, 2006; 13(6): 608 - 618.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
R. A. McNutt
Shared Medical Decision Making: Problems, Process, Progress
JAMA, November 24, 2004; 292(20): 2516 - 2518.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
K. Armstrong, J. S. Schwartz, G. Fitzgerald, M. Putt, and P. A. Ubel
Effect of Framing as Gain versus Loss on Understanding and Hypothetical Treatment Choices: Survival and Mortality Curves
Med Decis Making, February 1, 2002; 22(1): 76 - 83.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
A. Edwards and G. Elwyn
How Should Effectiveness of Risk Communication to Aid Patients' Decisions Be Judged?: A Review of the Literature
Med Decis Making, October 1, 1999; 19(4): 428 - 434.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
S. H. Miles, R. Koepp, and E. P. Weber
Advance End-of-Life Treatment Planning
Arch Intern Med, May 27, 1996; 156(10): 1062 - 1068.
[Abstract] [PDF]