Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 10, pp 633–642 | Cite as

The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians

  • Patricia McGettigan
  • Ketrina Sly
  • Dianne O’Connell
  • Suzanne Hill
  • David Henry
Clinical Reviews

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The presentation format of clinical trial results, or the “frame,” may influence perceptions about the worth of a treatment. The extent and consistency of that influence are unclear. We undertook a systematic review of the published literature on the effects of information framing on the practices of physicians.

DESIGN: Relevant articles were retrieved using bibliographic and electronic searches. Information was extracted from each in relation to study design, frame type, parameter assessed, assessment scale, clinical setting, intervention, results, and factors modifying the frame effect.

MAIN RESULTS: Twelve articles reported randomized trials investigating the effect of framing on doctors’ opinions or intended practices. Methodological shortcomings were numerous. Seven papers investigated the effect of presenting clinical trial results in terms of relative risk reduction, or absolute risk reductions or the number needing to be treated; gain/loss (positive/negative) terms were used in four papers; verbal/numeric terms in one. In simple clinical scenarios, results expressed in relative risk reduction or gain terms were viewed most positively by doctors. Factors that reduced the impact of framing included the risk of causing harm, preexisting prejudices about treatments, the type of decision, the therapeutic yield, clinical experience, and costs. No study investigated the effect of framing on actual clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS: While a framing effect may exist, particularly when results are presented in terms of proportional or absolute measures of gain or loss, it appears highly susceptible to modification, and even neutralization, by other factors that influence doctors’ decision making. Its effects on actual clinical practice are unknown.

Key words

information framing systematic review presentation format absolute risk relative risk number needed to treat 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tversky A, Kahnemann D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kahnemann D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Am Psychologist. 1984;39:341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916–21.PubMedGoogle 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;8:543–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Guido G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians’ willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994;343(8907):1209–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cranney M, Walley T. Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46:661–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nikolajevic-Sarunac J, Henry DA, O’Connell DL, Robertson J. Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:591–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ward JE, Shah S, Donnelly N. Resource allocation in cardiac rehabilitation: MuirGray’s aphorisms might apply in Australia. Clinician in Management. 1999;8:24–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marteau TM. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol. 1989;28:89–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christensen C, Heckerling PS, Mackesy ME, Bernstein LM, Elstein AS. Framing bias among expert and novice physicians. Acad Med. 1991;6619:576–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hux JE, Levinton CM, Naylor CD. Prescribing propensity: influence of life-expectancy gains and drug costs. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:195–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Timmermans D. The roles of experience and domain of expertise in using numerical and verbal probability terms in medical decisions. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:146–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. Five-year findings of the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program, 1: reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. JAMA. 1979;242:2562–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Primary Prevention Trial results, 1: reduction in incidence of coronary disease. JAMA. 1984;251:351–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, et al. Helsinki Heart Study: primary prevention trial with gemfibrizol in middle-aged men with dyslipidaemia: safety of treatment, changes in risk factors, and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1237–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    MRC Working Party. MRC trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. BMJ. 1992;304:405–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oldridge NB, Guyatt GH, Fiscer ME, Rimm AA. Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: combined experience of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1988;260:945–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skolbekken JA. Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs. BMJ. 1998;316:1956–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kahnemann D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schneider SL. Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and the current theories of risky choice. J Exp Psychol. 1992;18(5):1040–57.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jou J, Shanteau J, Jackson Harris R. An information processing view of framing effects: the role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory Cognition. 1996;24(1):1–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steiner JF. Talking about treatment: the language of populations and the language of individuals. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:618–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lamas GA, Pfeffer MA, Hamm P, Wertheimer J, Roleau JL, Braunwald E, for the SAVE Investigators. Do the results of randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular drugs influence medical practice? N Engl J Med. 1992;327:241–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kassirer JP. Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1895–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. When doctors meet numbers. Am J Med. 1981;71:991–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gigerenzer G. The psychology of good judgement: frequency formats and simple algorithms. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:273–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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
  31. 31.
    Redelmeier DA, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA. 1995;273(4):302–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ayanian JZ, Hauptman PJ, Guadagnoli E, Antman EM, Pashos CL, McNeil BJ. Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(17):1136–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Freidman PD, Brett AS, Mayo-Smith MF. Differences in generalists’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:414–21.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Woo B, Woo B, Cook F, Weisberg M, Goldman L. Screening procedures in the asymptomatic adult: comparison of physicians’ recommendations, patients’ desires, published guidelines, and actual practice. JAMA. 1985;254:1480–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brett AS. Ethical issues in risk factor intervention. Am J Med. 1984;76:557–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sackett DL. The Doctor’s (Ethical and Moral) Dilemma. The Office of Health Economics Annual Lecture. The Office of Health Economics; London, England: 1996.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Redelmeier DA, Tversky A. Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(16):1162–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Elstein AS. Clinical judgement: psychological research and medical practice. Science. 1976;194:696–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCormick J. The place of judgement in medicine. Br J Gen Pract. 1994;44:50–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nord E. The person trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:201–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Malenka DJ, Baron JA. Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: the importance of patient-specific attributable risk. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:2247–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Malenka DJ, Baron JA. Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: the attributable risk reduction of diet and drugs. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:1981–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318(26):1728–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. Therapeutic priorities of Canadian internists. Can Med Assoc J. 1990;142(4):329–33.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Reigelman R, Schroth WS. Adjusting the number needed to treat: incorporating adjustments for the utility and timing of benefits and harms. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:247–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sackett DL, Cook RJ. Understanding clinical trials. BMJ. 1994;304(6957):755–6.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analysis of randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(8):881–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cook RJ, Sackett DL. Number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310(6977):452–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fahey T, Newton J. Conveying the benefits and risks of treatment. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45(396):339–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Guyatt GH, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ. Applying the findings of clinical trials to individual patients. ACP J Club. 1995;122(2):A12–3.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Shannon H, Walter S, Cook D, Heddle N. Basic statistics for clinicians, 3: assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;152(3):351–7.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sackett DL. Applying overviews and meta analyses at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):61–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia McGettigan
    • 1
  • Ketrina Sly
    • 1
  • Dianne O’Connell
    • 1
  • Suzanne Hill
    • 1
  • David Henry
    • 1
  1. 1.the Disciplines of Clinical Pharmacology and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesThe University of NewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations