The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 10, 1999, Pages 633-642

  McGettigan, Patricia ^b   Sly, Ketrina ^b   O'Connell, Dianne ^b   Hill, Suzanne ^b   Henry, David ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE MATER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Absolute risk; Information framing; Number needed to treat; Presentation format; Relative risk; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DECISION MAKING; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM;

CLINICAL TRIALS; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 3042787616     PISSN: 08848734     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09038.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. 1. Tversky A, Kahnemann D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453-8.
2. 2. Kahnemann D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Am Psychologist. 1984;39:341-50.
3. 3. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121-4.
4. 4. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916-21.
5. 5. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:543-8.
6. 6. Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ. 1994;309:761.
7. 7. Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Guido G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994; 343(8907):1209-11.
8. 8. Cranney M, Walley T. Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46:661-3.
9. 9. Nikolajevic-Sarunac J, Henry DA, O'Connell DL, Robertson J. Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:591-98.
10. 10. Ward JE, Shah S, Donnelly N. Resource allocation in cardiac rehabilitation: MuirGray's aphorisms might apply in Australia. Clinician in Management. 1999;8:24-6.
11. 11. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259-62.
12. 12. Marteau TM. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol. 1989;28:89-94.
13. 13. Christensen C, Heckerling PS, Mackesy ME, Bernstein LM, Elstein AS. Framing bias among expert and novice physicians. Acad Med. 1991;6619:576-8.
14. 14. Hux JE, Levinton CM, Naylor CD. Prescribing propensity: influence of life-expectancy gains and drug costs. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:195-201.
15. 15. Timmermans D. The roles of experience and domain of expertise in using numerical and verbal probability terms in medical decisions. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:146-56.
16. 16. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. Five-year findings of the Hypertension Detection and Follow up Program, 1: reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. JAMA. 1979;242:2562-71.
17. 17. The Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Primary Prevention Trial results, 1: reduction in incidence of coronary disease. JAMA. 1984;251:351-64.
18. 18. Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, et al. Helsinki Heart Study: primary prevention trial with gemfibrizol in middle-aged men with dyslipidaemia: safety of treatment, changes in risk factors, and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1237-45.
19. 19. MRC Working Party. MRC trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. BMJ. 1992;304:405-11.
20. 20. Oldridge NB, Guyatt GH, Fiscer ME, Rimm AA. Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: combined experience of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1988;260:945-50.
21. 21. Skolbekken JA. Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs. BMJ. 1998;316:1956-8.
22. 22. Kahnemann D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263-91.
23. 23. Schneider SL. Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and the current theories of risky choice. J Exp Psychol. 1992;18(5):1040-57.
24. 24. Jou J, Shanteau J, Jackson Harris R. An information processing view of framing effects: the role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory Cognition. 1996;24(1):1-15.
25. 25. Steiner JF. Talking about treatment: the language of populations and the language of individuals. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:618-22.
26. 26. Lamas GA, Pfeffer MA, Hamm P, Wertheimer J, Roleau JL, Braunwald E, for the SAVE Investigators. Do the results of randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular drugs influence medical practice? N Engl J Med. 1992;327:241-7.
27. 27. Kassirer JP. Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1895-6.
28. 28. Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. When doctors meet numbers. Am J Med. 1981;71:991-8.
29. 29. Cigerenzer G. The psychology of good judgement: frequency formats and simple algorithms. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:273-80.
30. 30. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Treatment preferences of patients and physicians: influences of summary data when framing effects are controlled. Med Decis Making. 1990;10:2-5.
31. 31. Redelmeir DA, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA. 1995;273(4):302-5.
32. 32. Ayanian JZ, Huaptman PJ, Guadagnoli E, Animan EM, Pashos CL, McNeil BJ. Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(17):1136-42.
33. 33. Freidman PD, Brett AS, Mayo-Smith MF. Differences in generalists' and cardiologist' perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:414-21.
34. 34. Woo B, Woo B, Cook F, Weisberg M, Goldman L. Screening procedures in the asymptomatic adult: comparison of physicians' recommendations, patients' desires, published guidelines, and actual practice. JAMA. 1985;254:1480-4.
35. 35. Brett AS. Ethical issues in risk factor intervention. Am J Med. 1984;76:557-61.
36. 36. Sackett DL. The Doctor's (Ethical and Moral) Dilemma. The Office of Health Economics Annual Lecture. The Office of Health Economics; London, England: 1996.
37. 37. Redelmeler DA, Tversky A. Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups. N Engl J Med. 1990; 322(16):1162-4.
38. 38. Elstein AS. Clinical Judgement: psychological research and medical practice. Science. 1976;194:696-700.
39. 39. McCormick J. The place of judgement in medicine. Br J Gen Pract. 1994;44:50-1.
40. 40. Nord E. The person trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:201-8.
41. 41. Malenka DJ, Baron JA. Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: the importance of patient-specific attributable risk. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:2247-52.
42. 42. Malenka DJ, Baron JA. Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: the attributable risk reduction of diet and drugs. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:1981-5.
43. 43. Laupacis A. Sackett DL. Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318(26):1728-33.
44. 44. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. Therapeutic priorities of Canadian internists. Can Med Assoc J. 1990;142(4):329-33.
45. 45. Reigelman R, Schroth WS. Adjusting the number needed to treat: Incorporating adjustments for the utility and timing of benefits and harms. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:247-52.
46. 46. Sackett DL, Cook RJ. Understanding clinical trials. BMJ. 1994; 304(6957):755-6.
47. 47. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analysis of randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(8):881-9.
48. 48. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. Number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310(6977):452-4.
49. 49. Fahey T, Newton J. Conveying the benefits and risks of treatment. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45(396):339-41.
50. 50. Guyatt GH, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ. Applying the findings of clinical trials to individual patients. ACP J Club. 1995;122(2):A12-3.
51. 51. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Shannon H, Walter S, Cook D, Heddle N. Basic statistics for clinicians, 3: assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;152(3):351-7.
52. 52. Sackett DL. Applying overviews and meta analyses at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):61-6.