Literature DB >> 2918321

Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy.

A M O'Connor1.   

Abstract

Although most clinicians agree that patients should be informed about treatment alternatives, little is known about the way patients perceive probabilistic information about treatment outcomes and how it influences the choices they make. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of level and framing of probability on preferences for cancer treatment alternatives in which tradeoffs between quantity and quality of life are made. 129 healthy volunteers and 154 cancer patients indicated their preferences for a toxic treatment over a non-toxic treatment at varying survival probabilities. Subjects responded to questions in one of three randomly assigned conditions: (1) a positive frame in which the probability of survival was given; (2) a negative frame in which the probability of dying was given; and (3) a mixed frame in which the probability of surviving and dying were both given. The cancer patients' preferences for the more effective toxic treatment was significantly stronger than the healthy volunteers. Both groups were significantly influenced by the level of probability that was presented. Preferences for the toxic treatment were weaker when the chance of survival dropped below 50%. This weakening preference below 50% survival was enhanced for subjects who responded in the negative frame. A negative frame or probability level below 0.5 would seem to stimulate a "dying mode" type of value system in which quality of life becomes more salient in decision making than quantity of life. The implications in eliciting informed consent from patients are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2918321     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90085-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  27 in total

1.  Studying patients' preferences in health care decision making. Health Services Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-09-15       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Randomized study of placebo and framing information in direct-to-consumer print advertisements for prescription drugs.

Authors:  Amie C O'Donoghue; Helen W Sullivan; Kathryn J Aikin
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2014-12

3.  Does informed consent alter elderly patients' preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial.

Authors:  A M Wolf; J B Schorling
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Methods for measuring temporary health States for cost-utility analyses.

Authors:  Davene R Wright; Eve Wittenberg; J Shannon Swan; Rebecca A Miksad; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease.

Authors:  A E Clarke; M K Goldstein; D Michelson; A M Garber; L A Lenert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics.

Authors:  Alan R Tait; Terri Voepel-Lewis; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2010-07

7.  Measuring women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing.

Authors:  M Cappelli; L Surh; L Humphreys; S Verma; D Logan; A Hunter; J Allanson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Cost utility of chemotherapy and best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  W Kennedy; D Reinharz; G Tessier; A P Contandriopoulos; I Trabut; F Champagne; J Ayoub
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  Describing treatment effects to patients.

Authors:  Annette Moxey; Dianne O'Connell; Patricia McGettigan; David Henry
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Canadian atrial fibrillation anticoagulation study: were the patients subsequently treated with warfarin? Canadian Atrial Fibrillation Anticoagulation Study Group.

Authors:  A Laupacis; K Sullivan
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-06-01       Impact factor: 8.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.