» Articles » PMID: 15090100

"Is 28% Good or Bad?" Evaluability and Preference Reversals in Health Care Decisions

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Date 2004 Apr 20
PMID 15090100
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Choices of health care providers can become inconsistent when people lack sufficient context to assess the value of available information. In a series of surveys, general population samples were randomized to read descriptions of either 2 possible health care providers or a single provider. Some information about providers was easy to consider (e.g., travel time), but some was difficult to interpret without additional context (e.g., success rates). Ratings of the described health care providers varied significantly by whether options were evaluated independently or concurrently. For example, one fertility clinic (33% success rate, 15 min away) was rated higher than a 2nd (40% success rate, 45 min away) when each clinic was considered separately (7.1 v. 6.2, P = 0.046), but preferences reversed in joint evaluation (5.9 v. 6.7, P = 0.051). The results suggest that clinicians and developers of patient information materials alike should consider information evaluability when deciding how to present health care options to patients.

Citing Articles

Information preferences about treatment options in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: A Delphi consensus study.

Spierings J, Nienhuis H, van Lieshout E, van Laar J, Pieterse A J Scleroderma Relat Disord. 2022; 7(1):42-48.

PMID: 35382449 PMC: 8922679. DOI: 10.1177/23971983211043311.


Opportunities for theory-informed decision science in cancer control.

Gillman A, Ferrer R Transl Behav Med. 2021; 11(11):2055-2064.

PMID: 34850928 PMC: 8860386. DOI: 10.1093/tbm/ibab141.


Redevelopment of the Predict: Breast Cancer website and recommendations for developing interfaces to support decision-making.

Farmer G, Pearson M, Skylark W, Freeman A, Spiegelhalter D Cancer Med. 2021; 10(15):5141-5153.

PMID: 34152085 PMC: 8335820. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4072.


Improving the Understanding of Test Results by Substituting (Not Adding) Goal Ranges: Web-Based Between-Subjects Experiment.

Scherer A, Witteman H, Solomon J, Exe N, Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20(10):e11027.

PMID: 30341053 PMC: 6231727. DOI: 10.2196/11027.


Graphics help patients distinguish between urgent and non-urgent deviations in laboratory test results.

Zikmund-Fisher B, Scherer A, Witteman H, Solomon J, Exe N, Tarini B J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017; 24(3):520-528.

PMID: 28040686 PMC: 5565988. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw169.