IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i3p432-436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Informing Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen Peters
  • P. Sol Hart
  • Liana Fraenkel

Abstract

Background. Given the importance of effective patient communication, findings about influences on risk perception in nonmedical domains need replication in medical domains. Objective. To examine whether numeracy influences risk perceptions when different information frames and number formats are used to present medication risks. Methods. The authors manipulated the frame and number format of risk information in a 3 (frame: positive, negative, combined) × 2 (number format: frequency, percentage) design. Participants from an Internet sample ( N = 298), randomly assigned to condition, responded to a single, hypothetical scenario. The main effects and interactions of numeracy, framing, and number format on risk perception were measured. Results. Participants given the positive frame perceived the medication as less risky than those given the negative frame. Mean risk perceptions for the combined frame fell between the positive and negative frames. Numeracy did not moderate these framing effects. Risk perceptions also varied by number format and numeracy, with less-numerate participants given risk information in a percentage format perceiving the medication as less risky than when given risk information in a frequency format; highly numerate participants perceived similar risks in both formats. The generalizability of the findings is limited due to the use of non-patients, presented a hypothetical scenario. Given the design, one cannot know whether observed differences would translate into clinically significant differences in patient behaviors. Conclusions. Frequency formats appear to increase risk perceptions over percentage formats for less-numerate respondents. Health communicators need to be aware that different formats generate different risk perceptions among patients varying in numeracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen Peters & P. Sol Hart & Liana Fraenkel, 2011. "Informing Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 432-436, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:3:p:432-436
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10391672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10391672
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10391672?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. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    2. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    3. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Paul Slovic & Ellen M. Peters, 2009. "The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decisionmakers Varying in Numeracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(10), pages 1473-1488, October.
    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. Laura Colautti & Alice Cancer & Sara Magenes & Alessandro Antonietti & Paola Iannello, 2022. "Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Magda Hassan & Jaideep Prabhu & Rajesh Chandy & Om Narasimhan, 2023. "When Bulldozers Loom: Informal Property Rights and Marketing Practice Innovation Among Emerging Market Microentrepreneurs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 137-165, January.
    3. Marieke Huysentruyt & Daniel Read, 2010. "How do people value extended warranties? Evidence from two field surveys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 197-218, June.
    4. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    5. L. Robin Keller & Yitong Wang, 2017. "Information Presentation in Decision and Risk Analysis: Answered, Partly Answered, and Unanswered Questions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1132-1145, June.
    6. Alain Samson & Benjamin G. Voyer, 2012. "Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 2(2), pages 48-71, December.
    7. Justin F. Landy, 2016. "Representations of moral violations: Category members and associated features," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 496-508, September.
    8. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    9. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    10. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    11. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán Gonzalez & Ricardo Mateo, 2015. "Cognitive Reflection and the Diligent Worker: An Experimental Study of Millennials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, November.
    12. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    13. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    14. Breaban, Adriana & van de Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles, 2016. "Prudence, Personality, Cognitive Ability and Emotional State," Other publications TiSEM 9a01a5ab-e03d-49eb-9cd7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    16. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    18. Prokudina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe, 2015. "Does Confidence Predict Out-of-Domain Effort?," Discussion Paper 2015-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    19. Jordi Brandts & Isabel Busom & Cristina Lopez-Mayan & Judith Panadés, 2022. "Images Say More Than Just Words: Effectiveness of Visual and Text Communication in Dispelling the Rent–Control Misconception," Working Papers 1322, Barcelona School of Economics.
    20. Noussair, C.N. & Tucker, S. & Xu, Yilong, 2014. "A Future Market Reduces Bubbles but Allows Greater Profit for More Sophisticated Traders," Other publications TiSEM 43ded173-9eee-48a4-8a15-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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:31:y:2011:i:3:p:432-436. 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.