IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v8y2013i1p29-33_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating clinical trial outcomes: Effects of presentation method on physicians’ evaluations of new treatments

Author

Listed:
  • Marcatto, Francesco
  • Rolison, Jonathan J.
  • Ferrante, Donatella

Abstract

Physicians expect a treatment to be more effective when its clinical outcomes are described as relative rather than as absolute risk reductions. We examined whether effects of presentation method (relative vs. absolute risk reduction) remain when physicians are provided the baseline risk information, a vital piece of statistical information omitted in previous studies. Using a between-subjects design, ninety five physicians were presented the risk reduction associated with a fictitious treatment for hypertension either as an absolute risk reduction or as a relative risk reduction, with or without including baseline risk information. Physicians reported that the treatment would be more effective and that they would be more willing to prescribe it when its risk reduction was presented to them in relative rather than in absolute terms. The relative risk reduction was perceived as more effective than absolute risk reduction even when the baseline risk information was explicitly reported. We recommend that information about absolute risk reduction be made available to physicians in the reporting of clinical outcomes. Moreover, health professionals should be cognizant of the potential biasing effects of risk information presented in relative risk terms.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcatto, Francesco & Rolison, Jonathan J. & Ferrante, Donatella, 2013. "Communicating clinical trial outcomes: Effects of presentation method on physicians’ evaluations of new treatments," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 29-33, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:1:p:29-33_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500004472/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:1:p:29-33_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.