IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i6p703-713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Affecting Physicians’ Intentions to Communicate Personalized Prognostic Information to Cancer Patients at the End of Life

Author

Listed:
  • Paul K. J. Han
  • Nathan F. Dieckmann
  • Christina Holt
  • Caitlin Gutheil
  • Ellen Peters

Abstract

Purpose. To explore the effects of personalized prognostic information on physicians’ intentions to communicate prognosis to cancer patients at the end of life, and to identify factors that moderate these effects. Methods. A factorial experiment was conducted in which 93 family medicine physicians were presented with a hypothetical vignette depicting an end-stage gastric cancer patient seeking prognostic information. Physicians’ intentions to communicate prognosis were assessed before and after provision of personalized prognostic information, while emotional distress of the patient and ambiguity (imprecision) of the prognostic estimate were varied between subjects. General linear models were used to test the effects of personalized prognostic information, patient distress, and ambiguity on prognostic communication intentions, and potential moderating effects of 1) perceived patient distress, 2) perceived credibility of prognostic models, 3) physician numeracy (objective and subjective), and 4) physician aversion to risk and ambiguity. Results. Provision of personalized prognostic information increased prognostic communication intentions ( P

Suggested Citation

  • Paul K. J. Han & Nathan F. Dieckmann & Christina Holt & Caitlin Gutheil & Ellen Peters, 2016. "Factors Affecting Physicians’ Intentions to Communicate Personalized Prognostic Information to Cancer Patients at the End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(6), pages 703-713, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:6:p:703-713
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16638321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16638321
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16638321?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:25-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    2. Duersch, Peter & Römer, Daniel & Roth, Benjamin, 2013. "Intertemporal stability of ambiguity preferences," Working Papers 0548, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. W. Kip Viscusi & Scott DeAngelis, 2018. "Decision irrationalities involving deadly risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 225-252, 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. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Nagisa Shiiba & Hide-Fumi Yokoo & Voravee Saengavut & Siraprapa Bumrungkit, 2023. "Ambiguity Aversion And Individual Adaptation To Climate Change: Evidence From A Farmer Survey In Northeastern Thailand," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(01), pages 1-29, February.
    9. Constantinos Antoniou & Emilios C. Galariotis & Daniel Read, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion, Company Size and the Pricing of Earnings Forecasts," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 20(3), pages 633-651, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Maillet, Bertrand & Tokpavi, Sessi & Vaucher, Benoit, 2015. "Global minimum variance portfolio optimisation under some model risk: A robust regression-based approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 289-299.
    14. 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.
    15. Simon Dietz, 2011. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis," GRI Working Papers 54, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Maarten Vendrik & Christiane Schwieren, 2010. "Identification, screening and stereotyping in labour market discrimination," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 99(2), pages 141-171, March.
    19. Hill, Brian & Michalski, Tomasz, 2018. "Risk versus ambiguity and international security design," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 74-105.
    20. Sophie Bade, 2016. "Divergent platforms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(4), pages 561-580, April.

    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:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:6:p:703-713. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.