Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 67, Issue 2, pp 169–179 | Cite as

Probability Discounting and Cardiovascular Risk: The Effect of Side-Effect Severity and Framing

  • Rana AsgarovaEmail author
  • Anne C. Macaskill
  • Brian J. Robinson
  • Maree J. Hunt
Original Article

Abstract

An expectation of healthcare delivery is that patients can make informed decisions about whether and how to treat chronic health conditions. Decisions are complex because treatment is not always 100% effective and side effects can occur without a beneficial outcome. It is important, therefore, to understand the drivers of individual choices about whether to accept a treatment, particularly, how people respond to the probabilities of being well or unwell with or without the treatment. The current project investigated this using a probability discounting framework. Participants indicated whether they would take a drug that reduced their chance of having a heart attack or a stroke from a baseline probability that varied across trials. We told participants that they would always experience a side effect and manipulated its severity (i.e. either frequent headaches or persistent cold hands and feet). We also manipulated whether probabilities were framed negatively—in terms of heart attack or stroke—or positively—in terms of continued good heart health. We observed systematic discounting as a function of probability of heart attack or stroke without treatment. Discounting was shallower when the side effect was less severe. There was no significant effect of framing at the group level. Overall, probability discounting offers a useful approach to investigating the drivers of decisions about whether to accept medical treatment.

Keywords

Probability discounting Choice decision-making Health Heart attack Stroke Side effects 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Pharmac New Zealand, and the Victoria University of Wellington Summer Scholarship programme. This data set was presented at the New Zealand Association for Behaviour Analysis conference in 2016.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This project was funded by a grant from Pharmac New Zealand and a Summer Research Scholarship 2015 – 2016 from Victoria University of Wellington (grants do not have numbers).

Conflict of Interest

Authors 1 and 3 have received the grants from both of the above funders. Neither funder had any input into or oversight of the contents of this manuscript. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Victoria University of Wellington and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2009). Cilazapril-AFT. [Data sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/c/Cilazapril-AFTtab.pdf.
  2. Akl, E. A., Oxman, A. D., Herrin, J., Vist, G. E., Terrenato, I., Sperati, F., & Schunemann, H. (2011). Framing of health information messages. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12, 1–82.Google Scholar
  3. Barratt, A. (2008). Evidence based medicine and shared decision making: the challenge of getting both evidence and preferences into health care. Patient Education and Counselling, 73, 407–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, B., Ricco, J., Wallace, M., Kiefer, D., & Rakel, D. (2016). Communicating statin evidence to support shared decision-making. BMC Family Practice, 17(41), 1–9.Google Scholar
  5. Bekker, H. L. (2010). The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions? Patient Education and Counseling, 78, 357–364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruce, J. M., Bruce, A. S., Catley, D., Lynch, S., Goggin, K., Reed, D., & Jarmolowicz, D. P. (2016). Being kind to your future self: probability discounting of health decision-making. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50, 297–309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carling, C. L. L., Kristoffersen, D. T., Oxman, A. D., Flottorp, S., Fretheim, A., Schunemann, H. J., & Montori, V. M. (2010). The effect of how outcomes are framed on decisions about whether to take antihypertensive medication: a randomized trial. PLoS ONE, 5, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsources convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18, 189–196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Estle, S. J., Green, L., Myerson, J., & Holt, D. D. (2006). Differential effects of amount on temporal and probability discounting of gains and losses. Memory & Cognition, 34, 914–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 53–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hendrickson, K. L., & Rasmussen, E. B. (2013). Effects of mindful eating training on delay and probability discounting for food and money in obese and healthy-weight individuals. Behavior Research and Therapy, 51, 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holt, D. D., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2003). Is discounting impulsive? Evidence from temporal and probability discounting in gambling and non-gambling college students. Behavioral Processes, 64, 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2008). An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay discounting data. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16, 264–274.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Krumholz, H. M. (2013). Variations in health care, patient preferences, and high-quality decision making. JAMA, 310, 151–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Mann, D. M., Ponieman, D., Montori, V. M., Arciniega, J., & McGinn, T. (2010). The Statin Choice decision aid in primary care: A randomized trial. Patient Education and Counseling, 80, 138–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Montgomery, A. A., Fahey, T., & Peters, T. J. (2003). A factorial randomized controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. British Journal of General Practice, 53, 446–453.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Montgomery, A. A., Harding, J., & Fahey, T. (2001). Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice. Family Practice, 18, 309–313.Google Scholar
  19. Msaouel, P., Kappos, T., Tasoulis, A., Apostolopoulos, A. P., Lekkas, I., Tripodaki, E., & Keramaris, N. C. (2014). Assessment of cognitive biases and biostatistics knowledge of medical residents: a multicenter, cross-sectional questionnaire study. Medical Education Online, 19, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Myerson, J., Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 235–243.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Mylan New Zealand Limited. (2013). Cardinol LA [Data sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/c/Cardinol-LAcap.pdf.
  22. New Zealand Guidelines Group. (2012). New Zealand Primary Care Handbook 2012 (3rd ed.). Wellington: New Zealand Guidelines Group.Google Scholar
  23. Pfizer New Zealand Limited. (2015). Zarator [Data sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/z/ZaratorRoundNewtab.pdf.
  24. Politi, M. C., & Street, R. L. (2011). The importance of communication in collaborative decision making: facilitating shared mind and the management of uncertainty. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 579–584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rasmussen, E. B., Lawyer, S. R., & Reilly, W. (2010). Percent body fat is related to delay and probability discounting for food in humans. Behavioral Processes, 83, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sawicki, P., & Markiewicz, L. (2016). You cannot be partially pregnant: a comparison of divisible and nondivisible outcomes in delay and probability discounting studies. The Psychological Record, 66, 1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Shepherd, H. L., Barratt, A., Trevena, L. J., McGeechan, K., Carey, K., Epstein, R. M., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2011). Three questions that patients can ask to improve the quality of information physicians give about treatment options: a cross-over trial. Patient Education and Counselling, 84, 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Svensson, S., Kjellgren, K. I., Ahlner, J., & Saljo, R. (2000). Reasons for adherence with antihypertensive medication. International Journal of Cardiology, 76, 157–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Weatherly, J. N., & Terrell, H. K. (2014). Magnitude effects in delay and probability discounting when monetary and medical treatment outcomes are discounted. Psychological Record, 64, 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wegwarth, O., & Gigerenzer, G. (2013). Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: evaluation of what physicians tell their patients about screening harms. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173, 2086–2087.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Weymiller, A. J., Montori, V. M., Jones, L. A., Gafni, A., Guyatt, G. H., Bryant, S. C., Christianson, T. J. H., Mullan, R. J., & Smith, S. A. (2007). Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial. Archives of Internal Medicines, 167, 1076–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Whiting, P. F., Davenport, C., Jameson, C., Burke, M., Sterne, J. A. C., Hyde, C., & Ben-Shlomo, Y. (2015). How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? a systematic review. BMJ Open, 5, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yi, R., Chase, W. D., & Bickel, W. K. (2007). Probability discounting among cigarette smokers and nonsmokers: molecular analysis discerns group differences. Behavioral Pharmacology, 18, 633–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Graduate School of Nursing, Midwifery and HealthVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations