Medical Decision Making

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to browse AJSM online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dekay, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Asch, D. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dekay, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Asch, D. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 20, No. 1, 39-44 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000105

Other

Further Explorations of Medical Decisions for Individuals and for Groups

Michael L. Dekay, PhD

Carol A.E. Nickerson, PhD

Peter A. Ubel, MD

John C. Hershey, PhD

Mark D. Spranca, PhD

David A. Asch, MD, MBA

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)


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