IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v155y2016icp43-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding kidney transplant patients' treatment choices: The interaction of emotion with medical and social influences on risk preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Harrington, Jean
  • Morgan, Myfanwy

Abstract

Following renal transplantation patients experience on-going immunosuppressant medication to reduce the risk of graft rejection. Over the long term the side effects of immunosuppressive drugs may affect graft survival and significantly increase risks of cancers, stroke and cardiovascular disease. To reduce these risks research is underway to develop a biomarker test to identify those patients who are likely to be ‘tolerant’ to their graft and therefore able to reduce immunosuppression. Biomarker tests may however incorrectly identify some patients as tolerant, thus jeopardising their graft. Following a quantitative assessment of risk preferences we undertook a qualitative study to investigate the range of influences that shaped the substantial variations found in the level of risk transplant recipients were hypothetically willing to take. In-depth interviews were carried out in the United Kingdom between May 2013 and July 2014 with 24 transplant recipients all of whom had stable kidney graft function. These interviews identified a range of factors that patients take into account when making risk assessments, including familial views, trust and the ritual of ‘gift exchange’ that permeates the social space of kidney transplantation. Our data support the notion that emotion is not part of a linear process, preceding and separate to reason, but is intertwined with personal understanding and perception of risk and involves a complex interplay between different influences on decision-making. Our data also support Lupton's view that risk judgements are shared and collective rather than located within the individual and suggests that patient choice rather than involving a purely rational weighing of medical benefit is often based on influences that may not accord with the framework nor intention of medical professionals and medical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Harrington, Jean & Morgan, Myfanwy, 2016. "Understanding kidney transplant patients' treatment choices: The interaction of emotion with medical and social influences on risk preferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 43-50.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:155:y:2016:i:c:p:43-50
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361630082X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.027?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. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    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. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Gigi Foster, 2020. "The behavioural economics of government responses to COVID-19," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S3), pages 11-43, December.
    3. Samahita, Margaret & Holm, Håkan J., 2020. "Mining for Mood Effect in the Field," Working Papers 2020:2, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    4. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Tibert Verhagen & Daniel Bloemers, 2018. "Exploring the cognitive and affective bases of online purchase intentions: a hierarchical test across product types," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 537-561, September.
    6. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Kathleen McColl & Marion Debin & Cecile Souty & Caroline Guerrisi & Clement Turbelin & Alessandra Falchi & Isabelle Bonmarin & Daniela Paolotti & Chinelo Obi & Jim Duggan & Yamir Moreno & Ania Wisniak, 2021. "Are People Optimistically Biased about the Risk of COVID-19 Infection? Lessons from the First Wave of the Pandemic in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, December.
    8. Robert J. Shiller, 2017. "Narrative Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 967-1004, April.
    9. Mao, Wen, 2016. "Sometimes “Fee” Is Better Than “Free”: Token Promotional Pricing and Consumer Reactions to Price Promotion Offering Product Upgrades," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 173-184.
    10. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    11. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    12. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    13. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:420-432 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Petr Špecián, 2017. "Ekonomická analýza referenda [Economic Analysis of a Referendum]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2017(4), pages 460-475.
    16. Białaszek Wojciech & Ostaszewski Franciszek & Zielonka Piotr, 2018. "A Discrepancy Between “What Should You Choose?” and “What Do You Choose?” in Intertemporal and Risky Decision-Making," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 26(4), pages 2-10, December.
    17. Richards, Daniel W. & Fenton-O'Creevy, Mark & Rutterford, Janette & Kodwani, Devendra G., 2018. "Is the disposition effect related to investors’ reliance on System 1 and System 2 processes or their strategy of emotion regulation?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 79-92.
    18. Andrea Stevenson Thorpe & Stephen Roper, 2019. "The Ethics of Gamification in a Marketing Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 597-609, March.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    20. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    21. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.

    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:socmed:v:155:y:2016:i:c:p:43-50. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.