Cancer Patients' Decision Making and Trial-entry Preferences: The Effects of “Framing” Information about Short-term Toxicity and Long-term Survival

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 1995, Pages 4-12

  McGreal, M June ^a   Thiel, Elaine C ^b   Llewellyn Thomas, Hilary A ^b  

^a PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEX; SURVIVAL; TREATMENT PLANNING;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; COLONIC NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RECTAL NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SEX DISTRIBUTION; SURVIVAL RATE;

EID: 0028887984     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500103     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Beauchamp T.L., Childress JF Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: New Oxford University Press, 1983.
2. Kahneman A., Tversky D. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica. 1979; 47: 263-91.
3. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981; 211: 453-8.
4. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39: 341-50.
5. Kahneman D., Tversky A. The psychology of preferences. Sci Am. 1982;246: 160-73.
6. McNeil B.J., Pauker S.G., Sox H.C., Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982; 306: 1259-62.
7. O'Connor A.M., Boyd N.F., Tritchler D.L., et al. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments. Med Decis Making. 1985; 5: 453-63.
8. O'Connor AM Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42: 119-26.
9. Strull W.M., Lo B., Charles G. Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? JAMA. 1984; 252: 2990-4.
10. Blanchard C.G., Labreque M.S., Ruckdeschel J.C., et al. Information and decision making preferences of hospitalized adult cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 1988; 27: 1139-45.
11. Degner L.F., Russell CA Preferences for treatment control among adults with cancer. Res Nurs Health. 1988; 11: 367-74.
12. Sutherland H.J., Llewellyn-Thomas H.A., Lockwood G., et al. Cancer patients: their desire for information and participation in treatment decisions. J R Soc Med. 1989; 82: 260-3.
13. Llewellyn-Thomas H.A., McGreal M.J., Thiel E.C., et al. Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation. Soc Sci Med. 1991; 32: 35-42.
14. Langley G.R., Sutherland H.J., Wong S. Why are (or are not) patients given the option to enter clinical trials? Control Clin Trials. 1987; 8: 49-59.
15. Llewellyn-Thomas H.A., Thiel E.C., Clark RM Patients versus surrogates: whose opinion counts on ethics review panels? Clin Res. 1989; 37: 501-5.
16. Cassileth B.R., Zupkis R.V., Sutton-Smith K., et al. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med. 1980;92: 832-936.
17. Meyerowitz B.E., Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions and behaviour. J Per Soc Psychol. 1987; 52: 500-10.
18. Wilson D.K., Purdon S.E., Wallston KA Compliance to health recommendations: a theoretical overview of message framing. Health Educ Res. 1988; 3: 161-71.
19. Lauver D., Rubin M. Message framing, dispositional optimism, and follow-up for abnormal Papanicolaou tests. Res Nurs Health. 1990; 13: 119-207.
20. Siminoff L.A., Fetting JH Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Med Decis Making. 1989; 9: 262-71.
21. Levin I.P., Johnson R.D., Russo C.P., et al. Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information. Organiz Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1985; 36: 362-77.
22. Hershey J.C., Schoemaker Pjh. Prospect theory's reflection hypothesis: a critical examination. Organiz Behav Hum Perform. 1980; 25: 395-418.
23. Hershey J.C., Kunreuther H.C., Schoemaker Pjh. Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Sci. 1982; 28: 936-54.
24. Schoemaker Pjh. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Econ Lit. 1982; 20: 529-63.
25. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S. Response mode, framing, and information-processing effects in risk assessment. In Hogarth R (ed). New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: Question framing and Response Consistency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.
26. Marteau TM Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol. 1989; 28: 89-94.
27. Wilson D.K., Kaplan R.M., Schneiderman LJ Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care. Soc Behav. 1987; 2: 51-59.
28. Robberson M.R., Rogers RW Beyond fear appeals: negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1988; 18: 277-87.
29. Nisbett R., Ross L. Assigning weights to data: the vividness criterion. In Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, NJ,.J,., Prentice-Hall, 1980.
30. Kemp N., Skinner E., Toms J. Randomized clinical trials of cancer treatment: a public opinion survey. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1984; 10: 155-61.
31. Cassileth B.R., Lusk E.J., Miller D.S., et al. Attitudes towards clinical trials among patients and the public. JAMA. 1982; 248: 968-70.
32. Machina MJ Decision-making in the presence of risk. Science. 1987; 236: 537-43.