Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 18, Issue 11, pp 948–959 | Cite as

Describing treatment effects to patients

How they are expressed makes a difference
  • Annette Moxey
  • Dianne O’Connell
  • Patricia McGettigan
  • David Henry
Reviews

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of different presentations of equivalent information (framing) on treatment decisions faced by patients.

DESIGN: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted. English language publications allocating participants to different frames were retrieved using electronic and bibliographic searches. Two reviewers examined each article for inclusion, and assessed methodological quality. Study characteristics were tabulated and where possible, relative risks (RR; 95% confidence intervals) were calculated to estimate intervention effects.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles, yielding 40 experimental studies, were included. Studies examined treatment (N=24), immunization (N=5), or health behavior scenarios (N=11). Overall, active treatments were preferred when outcomes were described in terms of relative rather than absolute risk reductions or number needed to treat. Surgery was preferred to other treatments when treatment efficacy was presented in a positive frame (survival) rather than a negative frame (mortality) (relative risk [RR]=1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 1.64). Framing effects were less obvious for immunization and health behavior scenarios. Those with little interest in the behavior at baseline were influenced by framing, particularly when information was presented as gains. In studies judged to be of good methodological quality and/or examining actual decisions, the framing effect, although still evident, was less convincing compared to the results of all included studies.

CONCLUSIONS: Framing effects varied with the type of scenario, responder characteristics, scenario manipulations, and study quality. When describing treatment effects to patients, expressing the information in more than one way may present a balanced view to patients and enable them to make informed decisions.

Key words

information framing informed decision making systematic review 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Coulter A. Evidence based patient information. BMJ. 1998;317:225–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? BMJ. 1999;318:318–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39:341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson DK, Purdon SE, Wallston KA. Compliance to health recommendations: a theoretical overview of message framing. Health Educ Res. 1988;3:161–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;14:633–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;6:61–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HCJ, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Eng J Med. 1982;306:1259–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernstein LM, Chapman GB, Elstein AS. Framing effects in choices between multioutcome life-expectancy lotteries. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:324–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bier VM, Connell BL. Ambiguity seeking in multi-attribute decisions: effects of optimism and message framing. J Behav Decis Making. 1994;7:169–82.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Detweiler JB, Bedell BT, Salovey P, Pronin E, Rothman AJ. Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beachgoers. Health Psychol. 1999;18:189–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donovan RJ, Jalleh G. Positive versus negative framing of a hypothetical infant immunization: the influence of involvement. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:82–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gurm HS, Litaker DG. Framing procedural risks to patients: is 99% safe the same as a risk of 1 in 100? Acad Med. 2000;75:840–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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;15:152–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacoby A, Baker G, Chadwick D, Johnson A. The impact of counselling with a practical statistical model on patients’ decision-making about treatment for epilepsy: findings from a pilot study. Epilepsy Res. 1993;16:207–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuhn KM. Communicating uncertainty: framing effects on responses to vague probabilities. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1997;71:55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levin IP, Schnittjer SK, Thee SL. Information framing effects in social and personal decisions. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1988;24:520–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Linville PW, Fischer GW, Fischhoff B. AIDS risk perceptions and decision biases. In: Pryor JB, Reeder GD, eds. The Social Psychology of HIV Infection. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993:5–38.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Marteau TM. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol. 1989;28:89–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martinez TS. Message framing and college students’ HIV-preventive behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. The Sciences & Engineering. 2000;60:4303.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Tversky A. On the framing of medical decisions. In: Bell DE, Raiffa H, Tversky A, eds. Decision Making Descriptive Normative and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1988:562–8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Connor AM, Boyd NF, Tritchler DL, Kriukov Y, Sutherland H, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments. The influence of framing, medium, and rater variables. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:453–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Connor AM. Effects of framing and level of probability on patients’ preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:119–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Connor AM, Pennie RA, Dales RE. Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects experienced: the case of influenza immunization [published erratum appears in J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:747–8]. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1271–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robberson MR, Rogers RW. Beyond fear appeals: negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1988;18:277–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rothman AJ, Salovey P, Antone C, Keough K, Drake Martin C. The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1993;29:408–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rothman AJ, Martino SC, Bedell BT, Detweiler JB, Salovey P. The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1999;25:1355–69.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rybash JM, Roodin PA. The framing heuristic influences judgements about younger and older adults’ decision to refuse medical treatment. Appl Cognit Psychol. 1989;3:171–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Siegrist M. Communicating low risk magnitudes: incidence rates expressed as frequency versus rates expressed as probability. Risk Anal. 1997;17:507–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith SM, Levin IP. Need for cognition and choice framing effects. J Behav Decis Making. 1996;9:283–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wilson DK, Wallston KA, King JE. Effects of contract framing, motivation to quit, and self-efficacy on smoking reduction. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1990;20:531–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wilson DK, Kaplan RM, Schneiderman LJ. Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care. Soc Behav. 1987;2:51–9.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zimmermann C, Baldo C, Molino A. Framing of outcome and probability of recurrence: breast cancer patients’ choice of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in hypothetical patient scenarios. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;60:9–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wong CO, McMurray NE. Framing communication: communicating the antismoking message effectively to all smokers. J Comm Psychol. 2002;30:433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morris J, Hammitt JK. Using life expectancy to communicate benefits of health care programs in contingent valuation studies. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:468–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schneider TR, Salovey P, Pallonen U, Mundorf N, Smith NF, Steward WT. Visual and auditory message framing effects on tobacco smoking. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2001;31:667–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Assema P, Martens M, Ruiter RA, Brug J. Framing of nutrition education messages in persuading consumers of the advantages of a healthy diet. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2001;14:435–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Misselbrook D, Armstrong D. Patients’ responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:276–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Straus SE. Individualizing treatment decisions. The likelihood of being helped or harmed. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:210–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment. Health Policy. 1998;45:187–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Krishnamurthy P, Carter P, Blair E. Attribute framing and goal framing effects in health decisions. Organ Behav Human Decis Process. 2001;85:382–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Farrell K, Ferguson E, James V, Lowe KC. Confidence in the safety of blood for transfusion: the effect of message framing. Transfusion. 2001;41:1335–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jasper JD, Goel R, Einarson A, Gallo M, Koren G. Effects of framing on teratogenic risk perception in pregnant women [published erratum appears in Lancet. 2002;359:1702]. Lancet. 2001;358:1237–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Marketing Res. 1990;27:361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK, Freeman PR. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. J Health Econ. 2001;20:441–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kuhberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organ Behav Human Decis Process. 2002;89:1162–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull. 1997;121:3–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annette Moxey
    • 1
  • Dianne O’Connell
    • 2
  • Patricia McGettigan
    • 3
  • David Henry
    • 1
  1. 1.Received from the School of Medical Practice and Population HealthThe University of NewcastleAustralia
  2. 2.Cancer Epidemiology Research Unit, Cancer Research and Registers DivisionThe Cancer Council NSWAustralia
  3. 3.the Division of MedicineMater Misericordiae HospitalAustralia

Personalised recommendations