IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v255y2020ics0277953620301623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shifting medical guidelines: Compliance and spillover effects for revised antibiotic recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Lyons, Benjamin A.
  • Merola, Vittorio
  • Reifler, Jason

Abstract

Experts have recently argued that guidelines to take the full course of antibiotics are due for revision, instead recommending that patients stop when they feel better. It is unknown how communicating revised guidelines from medical experts about how long to take a course of antibiotics will affect beliefs, behavior, and trust in guidelines more generally. Objective. This study seeks to understand how revisions to long standing advice impacts the beliefs, behavior, and trust toward such guidelines from medical experts.

Suggested Citation

  • Lyons, Benjamin A. & Merola, Vittorio & Reifler, Jason, 2020. "Shifting medical guidelines: Compliance and spillover effects for revised antibiotic recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:255:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620301623
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620301623
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112943?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. 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. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    3. Thomas, Jonathan P. & McFadyen, Ruth G., 1995. "The confidence heuristic: A game-theoretic analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 97-113, March.
    4. Dominique Brossard & Kathleen Hall Jamieson & William Hallman, 2018. "Introduction to Special Series: Communicating About Zika," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2504-2506, December.
    5. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, 2018. "Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(11), pages 2620-2627, March.
    6. Ahluwalia, Rohini, 2000. "Examination of Psychological Processes Underlying Resistance to Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 217-232, September.
    7. Motta, Matthew & Callaghan, Timothy & Sylvester, Steven, 2018. "Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 274-281.
    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. Banerjee, Ritwik & Bhattacharya, Joydeep & Majumdar, Priyama, 2021. "Exponential-growth prediction bias and compliance with safety measures related to COVID-19," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    2. Iles, Irina A. & Gillman, Arielle S. & O'Connor, Lauren E. & Ferrer, Rebecca A. & Klein, William M.P., 2022. "Understanding responses to different types of conflicting information about cancer prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).
    3. Banerjee, Ritwik & Bhattacharya, Joydeep & Majumdar, Priyama, 2020. "Exponential-Growth Prediction Bias and Compliance with Safety Measures in the Times of COVID-19," IZA Discussion Papers 13257, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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. KUMRU Uyar & YUNUS Dursun, 2015. "Consumer Ethnocentrism And Brand Name Evaluations," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 67(1), pages 80-89, February.
    2. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    3. Casey A. Klofstad & Joseph E. Uscinski & Jennifer M. Connolly & Jonathan P. West, 2019. "What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Claudio A. Bonilla & Pablo A. Gutiérrez Cubillos, 2021. "The effects of ambiguity on entrepreneurship," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, February.
    5. Annika Styczynski & Jedamiah Wolf & Somdatta Tah & Arnab Bose, 2014. "When decision-making processes fail: an argument for robust climate adaptation planning in the face of uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 478-491, December.
    6. Gérard Mondello, 2020. "Building Belief Systems and Medical Ethics: The Covid-19 Controversies," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-35, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    7. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    8. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measures Of Family Decision Processes For Econometric Analysis Of Schooling Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 81-99, January.
    9. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Lemoine, Derek M. & Traeger, Christian P., 2010. "Tipping Points and Ambiguity in the Economics of Climate Change," CUDARE Working Papers 98127, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    11. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Ali Ahmed & Göran Skogh, 2006. "Choices at various levels of uncertainty: An experimental test of the restated diversification theorem," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 183-196, December.
    13. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Dow, Sheila, 2016. "Uncertainty: A diagrammatic treatment," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 10, pages 1-25.
    15. Theiss Bendixen, 2020. "How cultural evolution can inform the science of science communication—and vice versa," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Gonçalo Faria & João Correia-da-Silva, 2012. "The price of risk and ambiguity in an intertemporal general equilibrium model of asset prices," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 507-531, November.
    17. Joseph Kadane & Javier Girón & Daniel Peña & Peter Fishburn & Simon French & D. Lindley & Giovanni Parmigiani & Robert Winkler, 1993. "Several Bayesians: A review," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 2(1), pages 1-32, December.
    18. David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, July.
    19. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Tom Lehman & Bill Killam & Holly Massett & Andrew N. Freedman, 2011. "Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 354-366, March.
    20. 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.

    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:255:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620301623. 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.