Senlin Lin1,2, Yingyan Ma1,2, Haidong Zou1,2. 1. Department of Eye Disease Prevention, Shanghai Eye Disease Prevention and Treatment Center, Shanghai Eye Hospital, Shanghai 200010, People's Republic of China. 2. Shanghai General Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Eye Diseases, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Ocular Fundus Diseases, Shanghai Engineering Center for Visual Science and Photomedicine, Shanghai Engineering Center for Precise Diagnosis and Treatment of Eye Diseases, Shanghai 200000, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study tried to establish a metric framework of patient adherence to doctor's advice based on the expected utility and prospect theories, and it explained why the key to patient adherence to doctor's advice is patients' perceptions. METHODS: Our framework is primarily based on two mature theories: expected utility theory and prospect theory. We started with a basic assumption: the doctor is rational and cares for patient's health utility. We analyzed the expected utility of therapy with a definite diagnosis. Then, we considered the impacts of the accuracy of diagnostic techniques. After that, we explored the patient's response to the doctors' advices based on behavioral economics. In addition, we launched a discrete choice experiment to test our main point: perception is the key to patients' adherence. A total of 200 undergraduate students participated in the discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Three main factors might impact a rational clinical decision: the therapeutic and side effects of the treatment, patient's true disease risk, and diagnostic accuracy. However, another factor, patient's individual percepion, was crucial for patient's adherence since it may bias the patient's estimations regarding the above three factors. As a result, doctors and patients would have a cognitive gap in the estimation of the disease and the treatment. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that without the necessary information, better clinical techniques may not help to improve patient adherence, which support our theoretical reasoning forcefully. Therefore, improving patient adherence should be more of a process of empathy and communication rather than a promotion of medical technology.
PURPOSE: This study tried to establish a metric framework of patient adherence to doctor's advice based on the expected utility and prospect theories, and it explained why the key to patient adherence to doctor's advice is patients' perceptions. METHODS: Our framework is primarily based on two mature theories: expected utility theory and prospect theory. We started with a basic assumption: the doctor is rational and cares for patient's health utility. We analyzed the expected utility of therapy with a definite diagnosis. Then, we considered the impacts of the accuracy of diagnostic techniques. After that, we explored the patient's response to the doctors' advices based on behavioral economics. In addition, we launched a discrete choice experiment to test our main point: perception is the key to patients' adherence. A total of 200 undergraduate students participated in the discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Three main factors might impact a rational clinical decision: the therapeutic and side effects of the treatment, patient's true disease risk, and diagnostic accuracy. However, another factor, patient's individual percepion, was crucial for patient's adherence since it may bias the patient's estimations regarding the above three factors. As a result, doctors and patients would have a cognitive gap in the estimation of the disease and the treatment. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that without the necessary information, better clinical techniques may not help to improve patient adherence, which support our theoretical reasoning forcefully. Therefore, improving patient adherence should be more of a process of empathy and communication rather than a promotion of medical technology.
Authors: Scot H Simpson; Dean T Eurich; Sumit R Majumdar; Rajdeep S Padwal; Ross T Tsuyuki; Janice Varney; Jeffrey A Johnson Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-06-21
Authors: Y Nestoriuc; P von Blanckenburg; F Schuricht; A J Barsky; P Hadji; U-S Albert; W Rief Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Keith C Ferdinand; Fortunato Fred Senatore; Helene Clayton-Jeter; Dennis R Cryer; John C Lewin; Samar A Nasser; Mona Fiuzat; Robert M Califf Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Carolyn D Runowicz; Corinne R Leach; N Lynn Henry; Karen S Henry; Heather T Mackey; Rebecca L Cowens-Alvarado; Rachel S Cannady; Mandi L Pratt-Chapman; Stephen B Edge; Linda A Jacobs; Arti Hurria; Lawrence B Marks; Samuel J LaMonte; Ellen Warner; Gary H Lyman; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Salla A Munro; Simon A Lewin; Helen J Smith; Mark E Engel; Atle Fretheim; Jimmy Volmink Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 11.069