IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v177y2017icp248-255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reporting bias inflates the reputation of medical treatments: A comparison of outcomes in clinical trials and online product reviews

Author

Listed:
  • de Barra, Mícheál

Abstract

People often hold unduly positive expectations about the outcomes of medicines and other healthcare products. Here the following explanation is tested: people who have a positive outcome tend to tell more people about their disease/treatment than people with poor or average outcomes. Akin to the file drawer problem in science, this systematically and positively distorts the information available to others.

Suggested Citation

  • de Barra, Mícheál, 2017. "Reporting bias inflates the reputation of medical treatments: A comparison of outcomes in clinical trials and online product reviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 248-255.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:177:y:2017:i:c:p:248-255
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617300400
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.033?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. King, Robert Allen & Racherla, Pradeep & Bush, Victoria D., 2014. "What We Know and Don't Know About Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 167-183.
    2. Winterbottom, Anna & Bekker, Hilary L. & Conner, Mark & Mooney, Andrew, 2008. "Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2079-2088, December.
    3. Busfield, Joan, 2015. "Assessing the overuse of medicines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 199-206.
    4. Thomas, Felicity & Depledge, Michael, 2015. "Medicine ‘misuse’: Implications for health and environmental sustainability," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 81-87.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. MacFarlane, Douglas & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Ecker, Ullrich K.H., 2020. "Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    2. Lakomaa, Erik & Sanandaji, Tino, 2017. "Integrating community driven care service in European welfare states – nonprofit institutional entrepreneurship as driver for expanding access," SSE Working Paper Series in Economic History 2017:5, Stockholm School of Economics.
    3. Johnson, Blair T. & Acabchuk, Rebecca L., 2018. "What are the keys to a longer, happier life? Answers from five decades of health psychology research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 218-226.
    4. Blanco, Fernando & Matute, Helena, 2020. "Diseases that resolve spontaneously can increase the belief that ineffective treatments work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).

    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. M. Narciso, 2022. "The Unreliability of Online Review Mechanisms," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 349-368, September.
    2. Azer, Jaylan & Anker, Thomas & Taheri, Babak & Tinsley, Ross, 2023. "Consumer-Driven racial stigmatization: The moderating role of race in online consumer-to-consumer reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Cassandra France & Debra Grace & Joseph Lo Iacono & Joan Carlini, 0. "Exploring the interplay between customer perceived brand value and customer brand co-creation behaviour dimensions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-15.
    4. Becky R. Ford & Cynthia Stohl, 2019. "Does CSR Matter? A longitudinal analysis of product reviews for CSR-associated brands," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(1), pages 60-70, January.
    5. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    6. Raoofpanah, Iman & Zamudio, César & Groening, Christopher, 2023. "Review reader segmentation based on the heterogeneous impacts of review and reviewer attributes on review helpfulness: A study involving ZIP code data," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    7. Shahzad, Khuram & Zhang, Qingyu & Zafar, Abaid Ullah & Ashfaq, Muhammad & Rehman, Shafique Ur, 2023. "The role of blockchain-enabled traceability, task technology fit, and user self-efficacy in mobile food delivery applications," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    8. He, Yi & You, Ya & Chen, Qimei, 2020. "Our conditional love for the underdog: The effect of brand positioning and the lay theory of achievement on WOM," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 210-222.
    9. Hemant C. Sashittal & Avan R. Jassawalla, 2020. "The personal influence of Instagram bloggers on consumer–brand interactions: brands as tribal artifacts," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(6), pages 679-690, November.
    10. Milner, Mattie & Rice, Stephen & Rice, Connor, 2019. "Support for environmentally-friendly airports influenced by political affiliation and social identity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    11. Dongxiao Gu & Xuejie Yang & Xingguo Li & Hemant K. Jain & Changyong Liang, 2018. "Understanding the Role of Mobile Internet-Based Health Services on Patient Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-23, September.
    12. Laura D. Scherer & Jeffrey T. Kullgren & Tanner Caverly & Aaron M. Scherer & Victoria A. Shaffer & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2018. "Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 708-718, August.
    13. Rae Yule Kim, 2020. "The influx of skeptics: an investigation of the diffusion cycle effect on online review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(4), pages 821-835, December.
    14. Eelen, Jiska & Özturan, Peren & Verlegh, Peeter W.J., 2017. "The differential impact of brand loyalty on traditional and online word of mouth: The moderating roles of self-brand connection and the desire to help the brand," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 872-891.
    15. Ioana Marinescu & Nadav Klein & Andrew Chamberlain & Morgan Smart, 2018. "Incentives Can Reduce Bias in Online Reviews," NBER Working Papers 24372, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Sheng, Jie, 2019. "Being Active in Online Communications: Firm Responsiveness and Customer Engagement Behaviour," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 40-51.
    17. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    18. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.
    19. Supratim Kundu & Swapnajit Chakraborti, 2022. "A comparative study of online consumer reviews of Apple iPhone across Amazon, Twitter and MouthShut platforms," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 925-950, September.
    20. Eslami, Seyed Pouyan & Ghasemaghaei, Maryam, 2018. "Effects of online review positiveness and review score inconsistency on sales: A comparison by product involvement," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 74-80.

    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:177:y:2017:i:c:p:248-255. 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.