Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 1411–1417 | Cite as

Doctors and Patients’ Susceptibility to Framing Bias: A Randomized Trial

  • Thomas V. PernegerEmail author
  • Thomas Agoritsas
Original Research



Framing of risk influences the perceptions of treatment benefit.


To determine which risk framing format corresponds best to comprehensive multi-faceted information, and to compare framing bias in doctors and in patients.


Randomized mail surveys.


One thousand four hundred and thirty-one doctors (56% response rate) and 1121 recently hospitalized patients (65% response rate).


Respondents were asked to interpret the results of a hypothetical clinical trial comparing an old and a new drug. They were randomly assigned to the following framing formats: absolute survival (new drug: 96% versus old drug: 94%), absolute mortality (4% versus 6%), relative mortality reduction (reduction by a third) or all three (fully informed condition). The new drug was reported to cause more side-effects.


Rating of the new drug as more effective than the old drug.


The proportions of doctors who rated the new drug as more effective varied by risk presentation format (abolute survival 51.8%, absolute mortality 68.3%, relative mortality reduction 93.8%, and fully informed condition 69.8%, p < 0.001). In patients these proportions were similar (abolute survival 51.7%, absolute mortality 66.8%, relative mortality reduction 89.3%, and fully informed condition 71.2%, p < 0.001). In both doctors (p = 0.72) and patients (p = 0.23) the fully informed condition was similar to the absolute risk format, but it differed significantly from the other conditions (all p < 0.01). None of the differences between doctors and patients were significant (all p > 0.1). In comparison to the fully informed condition, the odds ratio of greater perceived effectiveness was 0.45 for absolute survival (p < 0.001), 0.89 for absolute mortality (p = 0.29), and 4.40 for relative mortality reduction (p < 0.001).


Framing bias affects doctors and patients similarly. Describing clinical trial results as absolute risks is the least biased format, for both doctors and patients. Presenting several risk formats (on both absolute and relative scales) should be encouraged.


risk framing perception of benefit patient–provider communication patient information 



The doctor survey was funded by an internal Research & Development grant, University Hospitals of Geneva; the patient survey was funded by the hospital’s Quality of Care Program. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interests

None disclosed.


  1. 1.
    McGettigan P, Sly K, O’Connell D, Hill S, Henry D. The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:633–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information: a review of the effects of framing and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 2001;6:61–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moxey A, Dip G, O’Connell D, McGettigan P. Describing treatment effects to patients: How they are expressed makes a difference. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:948–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Covey J. A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Med Decis Making 2007;27:638–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:543–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients’ acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making 1995;15:152–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Misselbrook D, Armstrong D. Patients’ responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension. Br J Gen Practice 2001;51:276–9Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chao C, Studts JL, Abell T et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer : how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4299–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carling CLL, Kristoffersen DT, Montori VM et al. The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial. PLOS Med 2009;6:e1000134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ 1994;309:761–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE. Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA 2004;291:2359–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gigerenzer G, Wegwarth O, Feufel M. Misleading communication of risk. BMJ 2010;341:791–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz PH, Meslin EM. The ethics of information: absolute risk reduction and patient understanding of screening. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:867–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edwards A, Elwyn G. Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences. Qual Health Care 2001;10(Suppl 1):i9-i13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stovring H, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB. Communicating effectiveness of intervention for chronic diseases: what single format can replace comprehensive information? BMC Med Inform Decis Making 2008;8:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carling CLL, Kristoffersen DT, Oxman AD et al. The effect of how outcomes are framed on decisions about whether to take antihypertensive medication: a randomized trial. PLOS One 2010;5:e9469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Fitzgerald G, Putt M, Ubel PA. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med Decis Making 2002;22:76–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peters E, Hart PS, Fraenkel L. Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2010; (epub).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deom M, Agoritsas T, Perneger TV. What doctors think about the impact of managed care tools on quality of care, costs, autonomy, and relations with patients. BMC Health Services Res 2010;10:331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agoritsas T, Courvoisier DS, Combescure C, Deom M, Perneger TV. Does prevalence matter to physicians in estimating post-test probability? A randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med 2011;26:373–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Agoritsas T, Perneger TV. Patient-reported conformity of informed consent procedures and participation in clinical research. QJM Int J Med 2011;104:151–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Agoritsas T, Deom M, Perneger TV. Study design attributes influenced patients’ willingness to participate in clinical research: a randomized vignette-based study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64–107.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee ET. Statistical Methods for Survival Data Analysis. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992, p 133.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE. eneral practitioners’ self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. BMJ. 2002;324:950–951.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Puhan MA, Steurer J, Bachmann LM, ter Riet G. A randomized trial of ways to describe test accuracy: the effect on physicians' post-test probability estimates. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:184–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sox CM, Doctor JN, Koepsell TD, Christakis DA. The influence of types of decision support on physicians' decision making. Arch Dis Child 2009;94:185–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schultz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of clinical epidemiologyUniversity Hospitals of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Division of general internal medicineUniversity Hospitals of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  3. 3.Faculty of medicineUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations