Literature DB >> 10696276

Anticipated versus actual reaction to HIV test results.

E M Sieff1, R M Dawes, G Loewenstein.   

Abstract

The accuracy of predictions of how people will react to a medical test result is important because it may influence the decision to be tested. We hypothesized that people would overpredict their own long-term reactions to HIV test results (i.e., that they would feel better in response to seropositive results and worse in response to negative results than they expected to). In the first study phase, anticipations of reactions to positive and negative HIV test results were obtained from 50 subjects. In the second phase, postresult reactions were obtained about 5 weeks after subjects learned the results of their tests. The results suggest that people anticipate more distress given a positive result and anticipate less distress given a negative result than they experience. Cautions about the comparability of the 2 samples and recommendations for further research are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10696276

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Psychol        ISSN: 0002-9556


  11 in total

1.  More intense experiences, less intense forecasts: why people overweight probability specifications in affective forecasts.

Authors:  Eva C Buechel; Jiao Zhang; Carey K Morewedge; Joachim Vosgerau
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2013-10-14

Review 2.  Predicting preferences: a neglected aspect of shared decision-making.

Authors:  Nick Sevdalis; Nigel Harvey
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  The Demand for, and Impact of, Learning HIV Status.

Authors:  Rebecca L Thornton
Journal:  Am Econ Rev       Date:  2008-12-01

4.  Why is p = .90 better than p = .70? Preference for definitive predictions by lay consumers of probability judgements.

Authors:  G Keren; K H Teigen
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-06

5.  Compared to what? A joint evaluation method for assessing quality of life.

Authors:  Heather P Lacey; George Loewenstein; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-02-04       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Misunderstandings concerning genetics among patients confronting genetic disease.

Authors:  Robert L Klitzman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-05-29       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Testing negative means I'm lucky, making good choices, or immune: diverse reactions to HIV test results are associated with risk behaviors.

Authors:  Brian Mustanski; H Jonathon Rendina; George J Greene; Patrick S Sullivan; Jeffrey T Parsons
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2014-12

8.  Priority setting and patient adaptation to disability and illness: outcomes of a qualitative study.

Authors:  John McKie; Rosalind Hurworth; Bradley Shrimpton; Jeff Richardson; Catherine Bell
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2014-09

9.  Are they really that happy? Exploring scale recalibration in estimates of well-being.

Authors:  Heather P Lacey; Angela Fagerlin; George Loewenstein; Dylan M Smith; Jason Riis; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.267

10.  The meaning of vaguely quantified frequency response options on a quality of life scale depends on respondents' medical status and age.

Authors:  Stefan Schneider; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.