Show simple item record

The role of perceived benefits and costs in patients’ medical decisions

dc.contributor.authorSinger, Eleanoren_US
dc.contributor.authorCouper, Mick P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFagerlin, Angelaen_US
dc.contributor.authorFowler, Floyd J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLevin, Carrie A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorUbel, Peter A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorVan Hoewyk, Johnen_US
dc.contributor.authorZikmund‐fisher, Brian J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-11T17:57:16Z
dc.date.available2015-04-16T14:24:20Zen_US
dc.date.issued2014-03en_US
dc.identifier.citationSinger, Eleanor; Couper, Mick P.; Fagerlin, Angela; Fowler, Floyd J.; Levin, Carrie A.; Ubel, Peter A.; Van Hoewyk, John; Zikmund‐fisher, Brian J. (2014). "The role of perceived benefits and costs in patientsâ medical decisions." Health Expectations 17(1).en_US
dc.identifier.issn1369-6513en_US
dc.identifier.issn1369-7625en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/102701
dc.description.abstractBackground  Many decisions can be understood in terms of actors’ valuations of benefits and costs. The article investigates whether this is also true of patient medical decision making. It aims to investigate (i) the importance patients attach to various reasons for and against nine medical decisions; (ii) how well the importance attached to benefits and costs predicts action or inaction; and (iii) how such valuations are related to decision confidence. Methods  In a national random digit dial telephone survey of U.S. adults, patients rated the importance of various reasons for and against medical decisions they had made or talked to a health‐care provider about during the past 2 years. Participants were 2575 English‐speaking adults age 40 and older. Data were analysed by means of logistic regressions predicting action/inaction and linear regressions predicting confidence. Results  Aggregating individual reasons into those that may be regarded as benefits and those that may be regarded as costs, and weighting them by their importance to the patient, shows the expected relationship to action. Perceived benefits and costs are also significantly related to the confidence patients report about their decision. Conclusion  The factors patients say are important in their medical decisions reflect a subjective weighing of benefits and costs and predict action/inaction although they do not necessarily indicate that patients are well informed. The greater the difference between the importance attached to benefits and costs, the greater patients’ confidence in their decision.en_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherBenefitsen_US
dc.subject.otherCostsen_US
dc.subject.otherMedical Decision Makingen_US
dc.titleThe role of perceived benefits and costs in patients’ medical decisionsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumAssistant Professor, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, and Research Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumResearch Professor Emerita, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumResearch Professor, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumAssociate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan and Research Scientist, VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumSenior Research Associate, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherSenior Scientific Advisor to the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making and Senior Research Fellow at the Survey Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherResearch Director, Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making, Boston, MAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherJohn O. Blackburn Professor of Business, Fuqua Business School and Professor of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NCen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/102701/1/hex739.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00739.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceHealth Expectationsen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCenters for Disease Control and Prevention 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Summary Data Quality Report. Available at: http:ftp.cdc.govpubDataBrfss2006SummaryDataQualityReport.pdf, accessed 8 October 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: an Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley, 1975.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAjzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall, 1980.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGroves RM, Singer E, Corning AD. A leverage‐saliency theory of survey participation: description and illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2000; 64: 299 – 308.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDunn LB, Gordon NE. Improving informed consent and enhancing recruitment for research by understanding economic behavior. JAMA, 2005; 293: 609 – 612.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVerheggen F, Nieman F, Jonkers R. Determinants of patient participation in clinical studies requiring informed consent: why patients enter a clinical trial. Patient Education and Counseling, 1998; 35: 111 – 125.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHalpern SD, Karlawish JH, Casarett D, Berlin JA, Asch DA. Empirical assessment of whether moderate payments are undue or unjust inducements for participation in clinical trials. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2004; 164: 801 – 803.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSinger E. Exploring the meaning of consent: participation in research and beliefs about risks and benefits. Journal of Official Statistics, 2003; 19: 273 – 285.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSinger E. Notes toward a cost‐benefit theory of survey participation. Lecture presented at University of Maryland March 12 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCouper MP, Singer E, Conrad F, Groves RM. Risk of disclosure, perceptions of risk, and concerns about privacy and confidentiality as factors in survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 2008; 24: 255 – 275.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCouper MP, Singer E, Conrad F, Groves RM. Experimental studies of disclosure risk, disclosure harm, topic sensitivity and survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 2008; 26: 287 – 300.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSinger E, Couper MP. Do incentives exert undue influence on survey participation? Experimental evidence Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2008; 7: 49 – 56.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCharles CA, Whelan T, Gafni A, Willan A, Farrell S. Shared decision‐making in the medical encounter. Social Science and Medicine, 1997; 44: 5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCharles CA, Whelan T, Gafni A, Willan A, Farrell S. Shared treatment decision making: what does it mean to physicians. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2003; 21: 5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSepucha KR, Fowler FJ, Mulley AG. Policy support for patient‐centered care: the need for measurable improvements in decision quality. Health Affairs, 2004; Web Exclusive 7: Var. 54 – 62.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCouper MP, Zikmund‐Fisher BJ, Singer E et al. Summary of methods for the national survey of medical decisions (the DECISIONS study). 2008. Available at: http:www.cbdsm.orgdownloadsdecisionsmethods.pdf, accessed 8 October 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZikmund‐Fisher BJ, Couper MP, Singer E et al. The DECISIONS study: a nationwide survey of U.S. adults regarding nine common medical decisions. Medical Decision Making, 2010; 30 ( Suppl. 5 ): S20 – S34.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFagerlin A, Sepucha KR, Couper MP et al. Patients’ knowledge about 9 common health conditions: the DECISIONS survey. Medical Decision Making, 2010; 30 ( Suppl. 5 ): S35 – S52.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEmanuel EJ. Ending concerns about undue inducement. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 2004; 32 ( Suppl. 5 ): 100 – 105.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrady C. Money for research participation: does it jeopardize informed consent? The American Journal of Bioethics, 2002; 1: 40 – 44.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUbel P. Free Market Madness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNagelkerke NJD. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 1991; 78: 691 – 692.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Wiley, 2000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox DR, Snell EJ. The Analysis of Binary Data, 2nd edn. London: Chapman and Hall, 1989.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFagerlin A, Lakhani I, Lantz PM et al. An informed decision? Breast cancer patients and their knowledge about treatment. Patient Education and Counseling, 2006; 64: 303 – 312.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSepucha KR, Fagerlin A, Couper MP et al. How does feeling informed relate to being informed? Results from the DECISIONS study. Medical Decision Making, 2010; 30 ( Suppl. 5 ): S77 – S84.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFestinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson, 1957.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.