Literature DB >> 32725580

Gain-loss framing and patients' decisions: a linguistic examination of information framing in physician-patient conversations.

Ilona Fridman1,2, Angela Fagerlin3,4, Karen A Scherr5, Laura D Scherer6,7, Hanna Huffstetler8, Peter A Ubel8,9,10.   

Abstract

When discussing risks and benefits with cancer patients, physicians could focus on losses such as mortality rates and cancer recurrence or, alternatively, gains such as survival rates and curing cancer. Previous research has shown that the way health information is framed influences individuals' preferences and choices. We operationalized gain-loss framing as physicians' choice of words related to gains (cancer survival), or losses (cancer mortality). In an exploratory analysis, we investigated (a) whether physicians used gain or loss words as a function of their recommendation, (b) whether physicians' choice of words was associated with patients' treatment choices. We analyzed transcribed consultations with male patients who had intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Using an iterative process of gathering and evaluating words, we created gain- and loss-dictionaries. The loss-dictionary included words related to cancer death and cancer progression. The gain-dictionary included words related to survival and cure. Using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software, we calculated the number of words related to gains and losses in each transcript. We found that physicians who recommended immediate cancer treatment for prostate cancer (vs. active surveillance) used slightly fewer words related to losses and significantly fewer words related specifically to death from cancer. Further analysis showed that loss words were associated with the patient's choice of immediate cancer treatment. A novel method of automated text analysis showed that physicians' use of loss words was correlated with physicians' recommendations for cancer treatment versus active surveillance. Additionally, loss words in consultations were associated with patients' choice of cancer treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Cancer; Decision making; Framing; Gains; Health communication; LIWC; Losses; Prospect theory; Prostate cancer

Year:  2020        PMID: 32725580     DOI: 10.1007/s10865-020-00171-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Behav Med        ISSN: 0160-7715


  21 in total

1.  Shared Decision Making Guidance Reminders in Practice (SDM-GRIP).

Authors:  Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Karen Kelly-Blake; Francesca Dwamena; Katherine Dontje; Rebecca C Henry; Adesuwa Olomu; David R Rovner; Marilyn L Rothert
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-02-01

Review 2.  The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: a meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Daniel J O'Keefe; Jakob D Jensen
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2007 Oct-Nov

3.  Fast and fragile: A new look at the automaticity of negation processing.

Authors:  Roland Deutsch; Robert Kordts-Freudinger; Bertram Gawronski; Fritz Strack
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2009

Review 4.  [EAU guidelines on prostate cancer].

Authors:  Axel Heidenreich; Gunna Aus; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Vsevolod B Matveev; Hans Peter Schmid; Filliberto Zattoni
Journal:  Actas Urol Esp       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 0.994

5.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.

Authors: 
Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process       Date:  1998-11

6.  The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior.

Authors:  B E Meyerowitz; S Chaiken
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1987-03

7.  Rethinking Risk: Prospect Theory Application in Health Message Framing Research.

Authors:  Nancy Grant Harrington; Anna M Kerr
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2016-05-13

8.  The effect of prognostic data presentation format on perceived risk among surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients: a randomized comparative trial.

Authors:  Andy R Chapman; Edward Litton; Jenny Chamberlain; Kwok M Ho
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.425

9.  Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  P C Albertsen; J A Hanley; D F Gleason; M J Barry
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  "Cure" Versus "Clinical Remission": The Impact of a Medication Description on the Willingness of People Living with HIV to Take a Medication.

Authors:  Ilona Fridman; Peter A Ubel; Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Cameron V England; Judith S Currier; Nir Eyal; Kenneth A Freedberg; Scott D Halpern; Colleen F Kelley; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Catherine N Le; Jeffrey L Lennox; Kathryn I Pollak; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Karen A Scherr
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2020-07
View more
  3 in total

1.  The joint effect of framing and defaults on choice behavior.

Authors:  Felice Giuliani; Loreta Cannito; Gilberto Gigliotti; Angelo Rosa; Davide Pietroni; Riccardo Palumbo
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-09-05

Review 2.  Four reasons why too many informed consents to clinical research are invalid: a critical analysis of current practices.

Authors:  Anne Wisgalla; Joerg Hasford
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Experience Measures after Radical Prostatectomy: A Register-Based Study Evaluating the Association between Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Information.

Authors:  Ola Christiansen; Øyvind Kirkevold; Ola Bratt; Jūratė Šaltytė Benth; Marit Slaaen
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-12
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.