Suppr超能文献

医生和患者对框架效应的易感性:一项随机试验。

Doctors and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial.

机构信息

Division of clinical epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, 4 rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Dec;26(12):1411-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1810-x. Epub 2011 Jul 27.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Framing of risk influences the perceptions of treatment benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which risk framing format corresponds best to comprehensive multi-faceted information, and to compare framing bias in doctors and in patients.

DESIGN

Randomized mail surveys.

PARTICIPANTS

One thousand four hundred and thirty-one doctors (56% response rate) and 1121 recently hospitalized patients (65% response rate).

INTERVENTION

Respondents were asked to interpret the results of a hypothetical clinical trial comparing an old and a new drug. They were randomly assigned to the following framing formats: absolute survival (new drug: 96% versus old drug: 94%), absolute mortality (4% versus 6%), relative mortality reduction (reduction by a third) or all three (fully informed condition). The new drug was reported to cause more side-effects.

MAIN MEASURE

Rating of the new drug as more effective than the old drug.

RESULTS

The proportions of doctors who rated the new drug as more effective varied by risk presentation format (abolute survival 51.8%, absolute mortality 68.3%, relative mortality reduction 93.8%, and fully informed condition 69.8%, p < 0.001). In patients these proportions were similar (abolute survival 51.7%, absolute mortality 66.8%, relative mortality reduction 89.3%, and fully informed condition 71.2%, p < 0.001). In both doctors (p = 0.72) and patients (p = 0.23) the fully informed condition was similar to the absolute risk format, but it differed significantly from the other conditions (all p < 0.01). None of the differences between doctors and patients were significant (all p > 0.1). In comparison to the fully informed condition, the odds ratio of greater perceived effectiveness was 0.45 for absolute survival (p < 0.001), 0.89 for absolute mortality (p = 0.29), and 4.40 for relative mortality reduction (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Framing bias affects doctors and patients similarly. Describing clinical trial results as absolute risks is the least biased format, for both doctors and patients. Presenting several risk formats (on both absolute and relative scales) should be encouraged.

摘要

背景

风险框架会影响对治疗益处的看法。

目的

确定哪种风险框架格式最能对应综合的多方面信息,并比较医生和患者的框架偏见。

设计

随机邮件调查。

参与者

1431 名医生(56%的回复率)和 1121 名最近住院的患者(65%的回复率)。

干预措施

要求受访者解释一项比较旧药和新药的假设临床试验结果。他们被随机分配到以下框架格式:绝对生存率(新药:96%对旧药:94%)、绝对死亡率(4%对 6%)、相对死亡率降低(降低三分之一)或全部三个(充分知情的情况)。报告新药会引起更多的副作用。

主要测量指标

将新药评为比旧药更有效的程度。

结果

医生中认为新药比旧药更有效的比例因风险呈现格式而异(绝对生存率 51.8%,绝对死亡率 68.3%,相对死亡率降低 93.8%,充分知情条件 69.8%,p<0.001)。在患者中,这些比例相似(绝对生存率 51.7%,绝对死亡率 66.8%,相对死亡率降低 89.3%,充分知情条件 71.2%,p<0.001)。在医生(p=0.72)和患者(p=0.23)中,充分知情的条件与绝对风险格式相似,但与其他条件显著不同(均 p<0.01)。医生和患者之间的差异均无统计学意义(均 p>0.1)。与充分知情条件相比,绝对生存率的感知有效性更高的优势比为 0.45(p<0.001),绝对死亡率为 0.89(p=0.29),相对死亡率降低为 4.40(p<0.001)。

结论

框架偏见会对医生和患者产生类似的影响。对于医生和患者来说,将临床试验结果描述为绝对风险是最没有偏见的格式。应鼓励呈现多种风险格式(包括绝对和相对比例)。

相似文献

1
Doctors and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial.
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Dec;26(12):1411-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1810-x. Epub 2011 Jul 27.
2
Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions.
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):432-6. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10391672. Epub 2010 Dec 29.
5
The framing effect of relative and absolute risk.
J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Oct;8(10):543-8. doi: 10.1007/BF02599636.
7
[Physician's role in "medical drama"--pitfall?].
MMW Fortschr Med. 2014 Nov 20;156(20):64-5. doi: 10.1007/s15006-014-3735-x.
8
Patient commentary: Empowered patients aren't belittled by doctors' titles.
BMJ. 2015 Nov 25;351:h6355. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h6355.
9
Doctors' perceptions of the prognostic benefit of statins in patients who have had myocardial infarction.
Intern Med J. 2009 May;39(5):277-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2008.01729.x. Epub 2009 Jun 28.
10
Comparison of patient and surgeon perceptions of adverse events after adult spinal deformity surgery.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Apr 20;38(9):732-6. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827ae242.

引用本文的文献

1
Cognitive Frame and Time Pressure as Moderators Of Clinical Reasoning: A Case Control Study.
West J Emerg Med. 2025 Jul 11;26(4):1055-1061. doi: 10.5811/westjem.24851.
2
Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255334. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255334. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
3
How Difference Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241294077. doi: 10.1177/23814683241294077. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
5
Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.
Transfus Med. 2024 Dec;34(6):543-549. doi: 10.1111/tme.13104. Epub 2024 Oct 15.
7
How to Administer the Performance Diagnostic Checklist-Human Services.
Behav Anal Pract. 2023 Sep 1;17(1):37-52. doi: 10.1007/s40617-023-00848-3. eCollection 2024 Mar.
9
Uterus Transplantation as a Surgical Innovation.
J Bioeth Inq. 2023 Sep;20(3):367-378. doi: 10.1007/s11673-023-10272-5. Epub 2023 Jun 29.

本文引用的文献

1
Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions.
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):432-6. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10391672. Epub 2010 Dec 29.
3
Does prevalence matter to physicians in estimating post-test probability of disease? A randomized trial.
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Apr;26(4):373-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1540-5. Epub 2010 Nov 4.
4
Misleading communication of risk.
BMJ. 2010 Oct 12;341:c4830. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4830.
5
Patient-reported conformity of informed consent procedures and participation in clinical research.
QJM. 2011 Feb;104(2):151-9. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcq172. Epub 2010 Sep 22.
6
Study design attributes influenced patients' willingness to participate in clinical research: a randomized vignette-based study.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jan;64(1):107-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.007. Epub 2010 Jun 16.
10
The influence of types of decision support on physicians' decision making.
Arch Dis Child. 2009 Mar;94(3):185-90. doi: 10.1136/adc.2008.141903. Epub 2009 Jan 8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验