Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hilton G. Present position relating to cancer of the lung: results with radiotherapy alone. Thorax. 1960;15:17–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychologist. 1984;39:341–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eraker SA, Sox HC Jr. Assessment of patients’ preferences for therapeutic outcomes. Med Decis Making. 1981;1:29–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Llewellyn-Thomas H, et al. Describing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care. 1984;22:543–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sox HC Jr, Blatt MA, Higgins MC, Marton KI. Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworths, 1988;216.

    Google Scholar 

  16. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:1397–401.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (111-P), 3710 S.W.U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, PO Box 1034, 97207, Portland, OR

    Dennis J. Mazur MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Dennis J. Mazur MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David H. Hickam MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Received from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mazur, D.J., Hickam, D.H. Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic. J Gen Intern Med 5, 402–405 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599425

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599425

Key words

Search

Navigation