Helping patients to reach decisions regarding their treatment

do 'non-directive' approaches cause systematic bias?

Joy Anne MacInnes, Paul M. Salkovskis, Abigail Wroe, Tony Hope

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)
69 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: Many patients want help in considering medical information relevant to treatment decisions they have to make or agree to. The present research investigated whether focussing on particular issues relevant to a medical treatment decision (using an apparently non-directive procedure) could systematically bias a treatment decision. Design and methods: In a randomized design, participants (community volunteers, n = 146) were given standard information about treatment of cardiac risk factors by medication (statins). There were four experimental interventions in which the participants focussed on the likely personal relevance of subsets of the information previously given (positive, negative, or mixed aspects) or on irrelevant information. Participants were asked to rate their anticipated likelihood of accepting treatment before and after the experimental intervention. Results: The rating of acceptance of treatment was significantly increased by positive focussing; negative focussing did not significantly alter the decision rating. Conclusions: The results partially replicate similar studies in health screening decisions. Reasons for the differences in results from those obtained in screening studies are considered. It is suggested that negative focussing may have less effect in decisions in which there are few risks.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)877-888
Number of pages12
JournalBritish Journal of Health Psychology
Volume20
Issue number4
Early online date19 Aug 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2015

Fingerprint

Therapeutics
Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
Volunteers
Health
Research

Keywords

  • Decision making
  • Non-directive counselling
  • Statins

Cite this

Helping patients to reach decisions regarding their treatment : do 'non-directive' approaches cause systematic bias? / MacInnes, Joy Anne; Salkovskis, Paul M.; Wroe, Abigail; Hope, Tony.

In: British Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 4, 11.2015, p. 877-888.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{de73d1a9e1194850a6516c403b6b716c,
title = "Helping patients to reach decisions regarding their treatment: do 'non-directive' approaches cause systematic bias?",
abstract = "Objectives: Many patients want help in considering medical information relevant to treatment decisions they have to make or agree to. The present research investigated whether focussing on particular issues relevant to a medical treatment decision (using an apparently non-directive procedure) could systematically bias a treatment decision. Design and methods: In a randomized design, participants (community volunteers, n = 146) were given standard information about treatment of cardiac risk factors by medication (statins). There were four experimental interventions in which the participants focussed on the likely personal relevance of subsets of the information previously given (positive, negative, or mixed aspects) or on irrelevant information. Participants were asked to rate their anticipated likelihood of accepting treatment before and after the experimental intervention. Results: The rating of acceptance of treatment was significantly increased by positive focussing; negative focussing did not significantly alter the decision rating. Conclusions: The results partially replicate similar studies in health screening decisions. Reasons for the differences in results from those obtained in screening studies are considered. It is suggested that negative focussing may have less effect in decisions in which there are few risks.",
keywords = "Decision making, Non-directive counselling, Statins",
author = "MacInnes, {Joy Anne} and Salkovskis, {Paul M.} and Abigail Wroe and Tony Hope",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/bjhp.12150",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "877--888",
journal = "British Journal of Health Psychology",
issn = "1359-107X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Helping patients to reach decisions regarding their treatment

T2 - do 'non-directive' approaches cause systematic bias?

AU - MacInnes, Joy Anne

AU - Salkovskis, Paul M.

AU - Wroe, Abigail

AU - Hope, Tony

PY - 2015/11

Y1 - 2015/11

N2 - Objectives: Many patients want help in considering medical information relevant to treatment decisions they have to make or agree to. The present research investigated whether focussing on particular issues relevant to a medical treatment decision (using an apparently non-directive procedure) could systematically bias a treatment decision. Design and methods: In a randomized design, participants (community volunteers, n = 146) were given standard information about treatment of cardiac risk factors by medication (statins). There were four experimental interventions in which the participants focussed on the likely personal relevance of subsets of the information previously given (positive, negative, or mixed aspects) or on irrelevant information. Participants were asked to rate their anticipated likelihood of accepting treatment before and after the experimental intervention. Results: The rating of acceptance of treatment was significantly increased by positive focussing; negative focussing did not significantly alter the decision rating. Conclusions: The results partially replicate similar studies in health screening decisions. Reasons for the differences in results from those obtained in screening studies are considered. It is suggested that negative focussing may have less effect in decisions in which there are few risks.

AB - Objectives: Many patients want help in considering medical information relevant to treatment decisions they have to make or agree to. The present research investigated whether focussing on particular issues relevant to a medical treatment decision (using an apparently non-directive procedure) could systematically bias a treatment decision. Design and methods: In a randomized design, participants (community volunteers, n = 146) were given standard information about treatment of cardiac risk factors by medication (statins). There were four experimental interventions in which the participants focussed on the likely personal relevance of subsets of the information previously given (positive, negative, or mixed aspects) or on irrelevant information. Participants were asked to rate their anticipated likelihood of accepting treatment before and after the experimental intervention. Results: The rating of acceptance of treatment was significantly increased by positive focussing; negative focussing did not significantly alter the decision rating. Conclusions: The results partially replicate similar studies in health screening decisions. Reasons for the differences in results from those obtained in screening studies are considered. It is suggested that negative focussing may have less effect in decisions in which there are few risks.

KW - Decision making

KW - Non-directive counselling

KW - Statins

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940069589&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12150

U2 - 10.1111/bjhp.12150

DO - 10.1111/bjhp.12150

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 877

EP - 888

JO - British Journal of Health Psychology

JF - British Journal of Health Psychology

SN - 1359-107X

IS - 4

ER -