Literature DB >> 11386626

Do nonpatients underestimate the quality of life associated with chronic health conditions because of a focusing illusion?

P A Ubel1, G Loewenstein, J Hershey, J Baron, T Mohr, D A Asch, C Jepson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A number of studies show that the general public often estimates that the quality of life (QOL) associated with various health conditions is worse than patients say it is. These studies raise the possibility that people overestimate the impact that unfamiliar health conditions will have on their quality of life. One possible reason people overestimate this is because they are susceptible to a focusing illusion--when asked to imagine themselves in unfamiliar circumstances, people overestimate the emotional impact of those features of their life that would change.
METHODS: The authors surveyed members of the general public to test the hypothesis that their QOL ratings of hypothetical health conditions would be higher (indicating a better quality of life) after thinking about how the health condition would affect a broad range of life domains. Across 3 experiments, the authors varied the health conditions people were asked to consider (either paraplegia, below-the-knee amputation, or partial blindness), the life domains they were asked to consider, the response mode with which they evaluated how each health condition would affect each life domain, whether subjects rated the health condition before and after considering life domains or only after, and whether subjects rated their own current quality of life first.
RESULTS: Across 3 experiments, using 10 different questionnaire versions, only 1 instance was found in which subjects' ratings were significantly higher after thinking about the effect of the health condition on life domains than before, and the magnitude of this increase was small.
CONCLUSION: It could not be established that a focusing illusion contributes significantly to the discrepancy in QOL ratings of patients and nonpatients. Further research should explore other factors that could contribute to the discrepancy or other ways of testing for the influence of a focusing illusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11386626     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  18 in total

1.  Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies.

Authors:  Geoffrey Norman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Proximity to disease and perception of utility: physicians' vs patients' assessment of treatment options for ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Lindsay Kennedy Brown; Akbar K Waljee; Peter D R Higgins; Jennifer F Waljee; Arden M Morris
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  Long-term health investment when people underestimate their adaptation to old age-related health problems.

Authors:  Octave Jokung; Serge Macé
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-12-28

4.  Discontinuing bevacizumab in patients with glioblastoma: an ethical analysis.

Authors:  Jennifer C Kesselheim; Andrew D Norden; Patrick Y Wen; Steven Joffe
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2011-09-23

5.  Thinking Forward: Future-oriented Thinking among Patients with Tobacco-associated Thoracic Diseases and Their Surrogates.

Authors:  Joanna L Hart; Emily Pflug; Vanessa Madden; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 21.405

6.  Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public.

Authors:  Peter A Ubel; George Loewenstein; Christopher Jepson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 7.  Affective forecasting: an unrecognized challenge in making serious health decisions.

Authors:  Jodi Halpern; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-30       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Evaluating the consequences of rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Björn Sossong; Stefan Felder; Malte Wolff; Klaus Krüger
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-07-28

9.  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

10.  Free Choice and Patient Best Interests.

Authors:  Emma C Bullock
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2016-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.