or search on
|Title:||Describing treatment effects to patients. How they are expressed makes a difference.|
|Authors:||Moxey A; O'Connell DL; McGettigan P; Henry D|
|Categories:||Cancer Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes Research - Education and Communication Research|
Treatment - Resources and Infrastructure
|Keywords:||Australia; Research Support,Non-U.S.Gov't; Risk; surgery; survival; Treatment Outcome; Communication; Confidence Intervals; Decision Making; Design; Health Behavior; Humans; mortality; Physician-Patient Relations|
|Journal Title:||Journal of General Internal Medicine|
|Page number start:||948|
|Page number end:||959|
|Abstract:||OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of different presentations of equivalent information (framing) on treatment decisions faced by patients. DESIGN: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted. English language publications allocating participants to different frames were retrieved using electronic and bibliographic searches. Two reviewers examined each article for inclusion, and assessed methodological quality. Study characteristics were tabulated and where possible, relative risks (RR; 95% confidence intervals) were calculated to estimate intervention effects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles, yielding 40 experimental studies, were included. Studies examined treatment (N = 24), immunization (N = 5), or health behavior scenarios (N = 11). Overall, active treatments were preferred when outcomes were described in terms of relative rather than absolute risk reductions or number needed to treat. Surgery was preferred to other treatments when treatment efficacy was presented in a positive frame (survival) rather than a negative frame (mortality) (relative risk [RR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 1.64). Framing effects were less obvious for immunization and health behavior scenarios. Those with little interest in the behavior at baseline were influenced by framing, particularly when information was presented as gains. In studies judged to be of good methodological quality and/or examining actual decisions, the framing effect, although still evident, was less convincing compared to the results of all included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Framing effects varied with the type of scenario, responder characteristics, scenario manipulations, and study quality. When describing treatment effects to patients, expressing the information in more than one way may present a balanced view to patients and enable them to make informed decisions|
|Division:||Cancer Research Division|
|Appears in Collections:||Research Articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.