Describing treatment effects to patients: How they are expressed makes a difference

Annette J. Moxey, Dianne O'Connell, Patricia McGettigan, David Henry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

92 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)948-959
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume18
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Numbers Needed To Treat
Health Behavior
Immunization
Confidence Intervals
Therapeutics
Publications
Language
Survival
Mortality

Cite this

Moxey, Annette J. ; O'Connell, Dianne ; McGettigan, Patricia ; Henry, David. / Describing treatment effects to patients : How they are expressed makes a difference. In: Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2003 ; Vol. 18, No. 11. pp. 948-959.
@article{1332a2c3dc614fa2bdf5b1fcbbdc0720,
title = "Describing treatment effects to patients: How they are expressed makes a difference",
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.",
author = "Moxey, {Annette J.} and Dianne O'Connell and Patricia McGettigan and David Henry",
year = "2003",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20928.x",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "948--959",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "11",

}

Describing treatment effects to patients : How they are expressed makes a difference. / Moxey, Annette J.; O'Connell, Dianne; McGettigan, Patricia; Henry, David.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 11, 11.2003, p. 948-959.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Describing treatment effects to patients

T2 - How they are expressed makes a difference

AU - Moxey, Annette J.

AU - O'Connell, Dianne

AU - McGettigan, Patricia

AU - Henry, David

PY - 2003/11

Y1 - 2003/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0345257155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20928.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20928.x

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 948

EP - 959

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 11

ER -