Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp 402–405

Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic

  • Dennis J. Mazur
  • David H. Hickam
Original Articles

Abstract

Objective:To assess how patients use graphic data to decide on preferences between alternative treatments.

Design:Cross-sectional survey of patients, physicians, and medical students. The physicians and medical students served as a control group with which to compare the patients’ responses.

Setting:A university-based Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Participants:152 patients seen in a general medicine clinic, 57 medical students, and 11 physicians.

Measurements and results:Subjects were given a survival graph showing the patient outcomes for two different unidentified treatments for an unidentified serious disease. They were asked to indicate which treatment they preferred and which portion(s) of the curves most influenced their preference. A large majority of both patients and health professionals preferred the treatment that had worse short-term and better long-term survival. Eleven percent of patients and 51% of health professionals identified mid-curve data (points other than the curve endpoints) as most influencing their preferences.

Conclusions:A graphic survival curve appears to provide enough information to assess patient preferences between two alternative treatments. Patients appeared to differ from physicians and medical students in their interpretation of the curves.

Key words

cognitive attitudes cognitive biases framing effect informed consent medical decision making preferences summary data 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Treatment preferences of patients and physicians: influences of summary data when framing effects are controlled. Med Decis Making. 1990;10:2–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, et al. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mountain CT. The relationship of prognosis to morphology and the anatomic extent of disease: studies of a new clinical staging system. In: Israel L, Chahinian AP, eds. Lung cancer: natural history, prognosis, and therapy. New York: Academic Press, 1976;107–40.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mountain CV, Carr DT, Anderson WAD. A system for clinical staging of lung cancer. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1974;120:130–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hilton G. Present position relating to cancer of the lung: results with radiotherapy alone. Thorax. 1960;15:17–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Knowing what you want: measuring labile values. In: Wallsten T, ed. Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980;117–41.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychologist. 1984;39:341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Connor AMC, Boyd NF, Trichler DL, et al. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments: the influence of framing, medium, and rater variables. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:453–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eraker SA, Sox HC Jr. Assessment of patients’ preferences for therapeutic outcomes. Med Decis Making. 1981;1:29–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. The measurement of patients’ values in medicine. Med Decis Making. 1982;2:449–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Llewellyn-Thomas H, et al. Describing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care. 1984;22:543–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Connor AMC, et al. Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique, and treatment experience on preferences. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:811–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sox HC Jr, Blatt MA, Higgins MC, Marton KI. Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworths, 1988;216.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:1397–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis J. Mazur
    • 1
  • David H. Hickam
  1. 1.Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (111-P)Portland

Personalised recommendations