BACKGROUND: Considerable reports concerned the framing effect in medical situations. But quite few of them noticed to explore the differences among the various kinds of framing effects. OBJECTIVES: In the present study, five different types of framing effects were examined and the effect sizes of them were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical decision making problems concerning medicine effect evaluation, patient's compliance, treatment and doctor options selection were established. All the problems were described in both positive and negative frames. 500 undergraduates as participants were randomly divided into ten groups. Participants from each group were asked to finish one decision making task. RESULTS: ALL THE FRAMES THAT WERE EXAMINED LEADED TO SIGNIFICANT FRAMING EFFECTS: When the Asia Disease Problem was described in a positive frame, the participants preferred the conservative frame than the risky one, while if in a negative frame, the preference reversed (P < 0.01). If the drug effect was described as "of 100 patients taking this kind of medicine, 70 patients became better", people tended to make more positive evaluations, compared with described as "of 100 patients taking this kind of medicine, 30 patients didn't become better" (P < 0.01). Doctors' advices were respectively described in a baneful or beneficial frame and the former one resulted in a better compliance (P < 0.05). If treatment options were described with a survival rate, people tended to choose risky option, while if described with a mortality rate, people tended to choose conservative option (P < 0.05). The number sized framing effect was also tested to be significant (P < 0.01). The five types of framing effects were small to big in effect size. CONCLUSIONS: Medical decision making can be affected by frame descriptions. Attentions should be paid on the standardization of description in medical practice.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Considerable reports concerned the framing effect in medical situations. But quite few of them noticed to explore the differences among the various kinds of framing effects. OBJECTIVES: In the present study, five different types of framing effects were examined and the effect sizes of them were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical decision making problems concerning medicine effect evaluation, patient's compliance, treatment and doctor options selection were established. All the problems were described in both positive and negative frames. 500 undergraduates as participants were randomly divided into ten groups. Participants from each group were asked to finish one decision making task. RESULTS: ALL THE FRAMES THAT WERE EXAMINED LEADED TO SIGNIFICANT FRAMING EFFECTS: When the Asia Disease Problem was described in a positive frame, the participants preferred the conservative frame than the risky one, while if in a negative frame, the preference reversed (P < 0.01). If the drug effect was described as "of 100 patients taking this kind of medicine, 70 patients became better", people tended to make more positive evaluations, compared with described as "of 100 patients taking this kind of medicine, 30 patients didn't become better" (P < 0.01). Doctors' advices were respectively described in a baneful or beneficial frame and the former one resulted in a better compliance (P < 0.05). If treatment options were described with a survival rate, people tended to choose risky option, while if described with a mortality rate, people tended to choose conservative option (P < 0.05). The number sized framing effect was also tested to be significant (P < 0.01). The five types of framing effects were small to big in effect size. CONCLUSIONS: Medical decision making can be affected by frame descriptions. Attentions should be paid on the standardization of description in medical practice.
Authors: Katrina Armstrong; J Sanford Schwartz; Genevieve Fitzgerald; Mary Putt; Peter A Ubel Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Ivan Buljan; Ružica Tokalić; Marija Roguljić; Irena Zakarija-Grković; Davorka Vrdoljak; Petra Milić; Livia Puljak; Ana Marušić Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 4.615