Literature DB >> 15090100

"Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions.

Brian J Zikmund-Fisher1, Angela Fagerlin, Peter A Ubel.   

Abstract

Choices of health care providers can become inconsistent when people lack sufficient context to assess the value of available information. In a series of surveys, general population samples were randomized to read descriptions of either 2 possible health care providers or a single provider. Some information about providers was easy to consider (e.g., travel time), but some was difficult to interpret without additional context (e.g., success rates). Ratings of the described health care providers varied significantly by whether options were evaluated independently or concurrently. For example, one fertility clinic (33% success rate, 15 min away) was rated higher than a 2nd (40% success rate, 45 min away) when each clinic was considered separately (7.1 v. 6.2, P = 0.046), but preferences reversed in joint evaluation (5.9 v. 6.7, P = 0.051). The results suggest that clinicians and developers of patient information materials alike should consider information evaluability when deciding how to present health care options to patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15090100     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04263154

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


  10 in total

1.  Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Risky feelings: why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-08-23

3.  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

4.  The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Andrea M Angott; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Opportunities for theory-informed decision science in cancer control.

Authors:  Arielle S Gillman; Rebecca A Ferrer
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Numeracy and literacy independently predict patients' ability to identify out-of-range test results.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Nicole L Exe; Holly O Witteman
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2014-08-08       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Graphics help patients distinguish between urgent and non-urgent deviations in laboratory test results.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Aaron M Scherer; Holly O Witteman; Jacob B Solomon; Nicole L Exe; Beth A Tarini; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Information preferences about treatment options in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: A Delphi consensus study.

Authors:  Julia Spierings; Hilde Nienhuis; Eva van Lieshout; Jacob M van Laar; Arwen H Pieterse
Journal:  J Scleroderma Relat Disord       Date:  2021-09-08

9.  Improving the Understanding of Test Results by Substituting (Not Adding) Goal Ranges: Web-Based Between-Subjects Experiment.

Authors:  Aaron M Scherer; Holly O Witteman; Jacob Solomon; Nicole L Exe; Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Redevelopment of the Predict: Breast Cancer website and recommendations for developing interfaces to support decision-making.

Authors:  George D Farmer; Mike Pearson; William J Skylark; Alexandra L J Freeman; David J Spiegelhalter
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.711

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.