IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v166y2021icp27-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient responses to physician disclosures of industry conflicts of interest: A randomized field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Rose, Susannah L.
  • Sah, Sunita
  • Dweik, Raed
  • Schmidt, Cory
  • Mercer, MaryBeth
  • Mitchum, Ariane
  • Kattan, Michael
  • Karafa, Matthew
  • Robertson, Christopher

Abstract

Most patients in the United States depend on physicians who have financial relationships with the healthcare industry. These physician-industry relationships represent a conflict of interest: a potential clash between the physicians’ professional responsibilities and their self-interest. We conducted a randomized field experiment to assess the impact of written disclosures of physicians’ conflict of interest on patients’ appointment attendance, knowledge of these conflicts of interest, and their trust in their physician and hospital. Patients (N = 1903) attending outpatient clinics at a large U.S. academic hospital from 2015 to 2016 who had appointments with physicians earning more than $20,000 from industry in the last year were randomized to receive (or not receive) disclosures of their physicians’ financial conflicts of interest (with or without explanation of the risks and/or benefits of such conflicts) in their appointment-reminder letters. There were no differences across condition in missed or cancelled appointments. For patients who attended eligible appointments with their physician and completed the post-appointment survey (N = 867/1276; 68% response rate), the disclosure intervention revealed significant improvement in patients’ knowledge of their physicians’ financial relationships but no significant differences in patients’ trust in their physician or hospital. Risk and benefit framings of financial relationships did not significantly affect any outcomes. These findings highlight that although mailed financial conflict of interest disclosures are effective as an educational tool, disclosure cannot be a panacea to addressing physician-industry relationships if the intended purpose is for patients to assimilate the information into their decision-making and account for potential physician bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Rose, Susannah L. & Sah, Sunita & Dweik, Raed & Schmidt, Cory & Mercer, MaryBeth & Mitchum, Ariane & Kattan, Michael & Karafa, Matthew & Robertson, Christopher, 2021. "Patient responses to physician disclosures of industry conflicts of interest: A randomized field experiment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 27-38.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:166:y:2021:i:c:p:27-38
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597818304709
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sah, Sunita & Malaviya, Prashant & Thompson, Debora, 2018. "Conflict of interest disclosure as an expertise cue: Differential effects due to automatic versus deliberative processing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 127-146.
    2. Johar, Gita Venkataramani & Simmons, Carolyn J, 2000. "The Use of Concurrent Disclosures to Correct Invalid Inferences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(4), pages 307-322, March.
    3. Sah, Sunita, 2017. "Policy solutions to conflicts of interest: the value of professional norms," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 177-189, November.
    4. Ulrike Malmendier & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2017. "You Owe Me," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(2), pages 493-526, February.
    5. Genevieve Pham-Kanter, 2014. "Act II of the Sunshine Act," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-3, November.
    6. Daylian M. Cain & George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2005. "The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-25, January.
    7. Campbell, Margaret C & Kirmani, Amna, 2000. "Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 69-83, June.
    8. Sniezek, Janet A. & Van Swol, Lyn M., 2001. "Trust, Confidence, and Expertise in a Judge-Advisor System," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 288-307, March.
    9. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    10. Bryan K. Church & Xi (Jason) Kuang, 2009. "Conflicts of Interest, Disclosure, and (Costly) Sanctions: Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 505-532, June.
    11. Sah, Sunita & Loewenstein, George, 2015. "Conflicted advice and second opinions: Benefits, but unintended consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 89-107.
    12. Sah, Sunita, 2019. "Conflict of interest disclosure as a reminder of professional norms: Clients first!," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 62-79.
    13. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    14. Koch, Christopher & Schmidt, Carsten, 2010. "Disclosing conflicts of interest - Do experience and reputation matter?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 95-107, January.
    15. Sendhil Mullainathan & Markus Noeth & Antoinette Schoar, 2012. "The Market for Financial Advice: An Audit Study," NBER Working Papers 17929, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Daylian M. Cain & George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2011. "When Sunlight Fails to Disinfect: Understanding the Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(5), pages 836-857.
    17. Malmendier, Ulrike & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2017. "You Owe Me," Munich Reprints in Economics 55042, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    18. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Effron, Daniel A. & Raj, Medha, 2021. "Disclosing interpersonal conflicts of interest: Revealing whom we like, but not whom we dislike," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 68-85.
    2. Sah, Sunita & Malaviya, Prashant & Thompson, Debora, 2018. "Conflict of interest disclosure as an expertise cue: Differential effects due to automatic versus deliberative processing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 127-146.
    3. Gesche, Tobias, 2021. "De-biasing strategic communication," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 452-464.
    4. Kartal, Melis & Tremewan, James, 2018. "An offer you can refuse: The effect of transparency with endogenous conflict of interest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 44-55.
    5. Sah, Sunita, 2019. "Understanding the (perverse) effects of disclosing conflicts of interest: A direct replication study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    6. Tobias Gesche, 2016. "De-biasing strategic communication," ECON - Working Papers 216, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Sep 2021.
    7. Behnk, Sascha & Barreda-Tarrazona, Iván & García-Gallego, Aurora, 2014. "The role of ex post transparency in information transmission—An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 45-64.
    8. Sung H. Ham & Ingrid Koch & Noah Lim & Jiabin Wu, 2021. "Conflict of Interest in Third-Party Reviews: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7535-7559, December.
    9. Caldieraro, Fabio & Cunha, Marcus, 2022. "Consumers’ response to weak unique selling propositions: Implications for optimal product recommendation strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 724-744.
    10. Gneezy, Uri & Saccardo, Silvia & Serra-Garcia, Marta & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2020. "Bribing the Self," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 120, pages 311-324.
    11. Tessitore, Tina & Geuens, Maggie, 2019. "Arming consumers against product placement: A comparison of factual and evaluative educational interventions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-48.
    12. Tuk, M.A. & Verlegh, P.W.J. & Smidts, A. & Wigboldus, D.H.J., 2008. "Sales and Sincerity: The Role of Relational Framing in Word-of-Mouth Marketing," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-056-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Paul Chen & Martin Richardson, 2019. "Conflict of Interest, Disclosure and Vertical Relationships: An Experimental Analysis," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 38(3), pages 167-181, September.
    14. Lisa Koonce & Zheng Leitter & Brian White, 2023. "The effect of a warning on investors’ reactions to disclosure readability," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 769-791, June.
    15. Sheremeta, Roman M. & Shields, Timothy W., 2017. "Deception and reception: The behavior of information providers and users," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 445-456.
    16. Silvia Saccardo & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2020. "Cognitive Flexibility or Moral Commitment? Evidence of Anticipated Belief Distortion," CESifo Working Paper Series 8529, CESifo.
    17. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "The pros and cons of workplace tournaments," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 302-302, October.
    18. Sascha Behnk & Iván Barreda-Tarrazona & Aurora García-Gallego, 2012. "Reducing deception through subsequent transparency - An experimental investigation," Working Papers 2012/14, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    19. Beyer, Max & de Meza, David & Reyniers, Diane, 2013. "Do financial advisor commissions distort client choice?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 117-119.
    20. Namin Kim & Youri Sung & Moonkyu Lee, 2012. "Consumer Evaluations of Social Alliances: The Effects of Perceived Fit Between Companies and Non-Profit Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 163-174, August.

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:166:y:2021:i:c:p:27-38. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.