Literature DB >> 15563299

Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: exploring the gap.

Andrea D Gurmankin1, Jonathan Baron, Katrina Armstrong.   

Abstract

We examined the risk perception that is derived from hypothetical physician risk communications. Subjects (n= 217) completed a questionnaire on the Web for $3. Subjects were presented with four hypothetical cancer risk scenarios that included a physician risk communication in one of three risk communication formats: verbal only, verbal plus numeric probability as a percent, and verbal plus numeric probability as a fraction. In each scenario, subjects were asked to imagine themselves as the patient described and to state their perceived personal susceptibility to the cancer (i.e., risk perception) on a 0 to 100 scale, as well as responses to other measures. Subjects' risk perceptions were highly variable, spanning nearly the entire probability scale for each scenario, and the degree of variation was only slightly less in the risk communication formats in which a numeric statement of risk was provided. Subjects were more likely to overestimate than underestimate their risk relative to the stated risk in the numeric versions, and overestimation was associated with the belief that the physician minimized the risk so they wouldn't worry, innumeracy, and worry, as well as decisions about testing for the cancer. These results demonstrate significant gaps between the intended message and the message received in physician risk communications. Implications for medical decisions, patient distress, and future research are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15563299     DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00530.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  18 in total

1.  How bad is a 10% chance of losing a toe? Judgments of probabilistic conditions by doctors and laypeople.

Authors:  Andrea Gurmankin Levy; Jonathan Baron
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-12

2.  Effect of arrangement of stick figures on estimates of proportion in risk graphics.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Elke U Weber; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  TOWARDS PATIENT-CENTERED CARE FOR DEPRESSION: CONJOINT METHODS TO TAILOR TREATMENT BASED ON PREFERENCES.

Authors:  Marsha N Wittink; Mark Cary; Thomas Tenhave; Jonathan Baron; Joseph J Gallo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Numeracy and framing bias in epilepsy.

Authors:  Hyunmi Choi; John B Wong; Anil Mendiratta; Gary A Heiman; Marla J Hamberger
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 2.937

5.  Development and Validation of the Spanish Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Jacobs; Cindy M Walker; Tamara Miller; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Pamela S Ganschow; Diana Imbert; Maria O'Connell; Joan M Neuner; Marilyn M Schapira
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Effects of game-like interactive graphics on risk perceptions and decisions.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Elke U Weber; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-04-14       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 7.  Monitoring style of coping with cancer related threats: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Pagona Roussi; Suzanne M Miller
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2014-02-02

8.  Towards personalizing treatment for depression : developing treatment values markers.

Authors:  Marsha N Wittink; Knashawn H Morales; Mark Cary; Joseph J Gallo; Stephen J Bartels
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Melanoma high-risk families' perceived health care provider risk communication.

Authors:  Lois J Loescher; Janice D Crist; Lee Cranmer; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; James A Warneke
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 10.  How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Nathan F Dieckmann
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 17.737

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.