Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians

  • Clinical Reviews
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The presentation format of clinical trial results, or the “frame,” may influence perceptions about the worth of a treatment. The extent and consistency of that influence are unclear. We undertook a systematic review of the published literature on the effects of information framing on the practices of physicians.

DESIGN: Relevant articles were retrieved using bibliographic and electronic searches. Information was extracted from each in relation to study design, frame type, parameter assessed, assessment scale, clinical setting, intervention, results, and factors modifying the frame effect.

MAIN RESULTS: Twelve articles reported randomized trials investigating the effect of framing on doctors’ opinions or intended practices. Methodological shortcomings were numerous. Seven papers investigated the effect of presenting clinical trial results in terms of relative risk reduction, or absolute risk reductions or the number needing to be treated; gain/loss (positive/negative) terms were used in four papers; verbal/numeric terms in one. In simple clinical scenarios, results expressed in relative risk reduction or gain terms were viewed most positively by doctors. Factors that reduced the impact of framing included the risk of causing harm, preexisting prejudices about treatments, the type of decision, the therapeutic yield, clinical experience, and costs. No study investigated the effect of framing on actual clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS: While a framing effect may exist, particularly when results are presented in terms of proportional or absolute measures of gain or loss, it appears highly susceptible to modification, and even neutralization, by other factors that influence doctors’ decision making. Its effects on actual clinical practice are unknown.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tversky A, Kahnemann D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kahnemann D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Am Psychologist. 1984;39:341–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:543–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ. 1994;309:761.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Guido G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians’ willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994;343(8907):1209–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cranney M, Walley T. Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46:661–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nikolajevic-Sarunac J, Henry DA, O’Connell DL, Robertson J. Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:591–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ward JE, Shah S, Donnelly N. Resource allocation in cardiac rehabilitation: MuirGray’s aphorisms might apply in Australia. Clinician in Management. 1999;8:24–6.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Marteau TM. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol. 1989;28:89–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Christensen C, Heckerling PS, Mackesy ME, Bernstein LM, Elstein AS. Framing bias among expert and novice physicians. Acad Med. 1991;6619:576–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hux JE, Levinton CM, Naylor CD. Prescribing propensity: influence of life-expectancy gains and drug costs. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:195–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Timmermans D. The roles of experience and domain of expertise in using numerical and verbal probability terms in medical decisions. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:146–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. Five-year findings of the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program, 1: reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. JAMA. 1979;242:2562–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. The Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Primary Prevention Trial results, 1: reduction in incidence of coronary disease. JAMA. 1984;251:351–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, et al. Helsinki Heart Study: primary prevention trial with gemfibrizol in middle-aged men with dyslipidaemia: safety of treatment, changes in risk factors, and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1237–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. MRC Working Party. MRC trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. BMJ. 1992;304:405–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Oldridge NB, Guyatt GH, Fiscer ME, Rimm AA. Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: combined experience of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1988;260:945–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Skolbekken JA. Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs. BMJ. 1998;316:1956–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kahnemann D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schneider SL. Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and the current theories of risky choice. J Exp Psychol. 1992;18(5):1040–57.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jou J, Shanteau J, Jackson Harris R. An information processing view of framing effects: the role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory Cognition. 1996;24(1):1–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Steiner JF. Talking about treatment: the language of populations and the language of individuals. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:618–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lamas GA, Pfeffer MA, Hamm P, Wertheimer J, Roleau JL, Braunwald E, for the SAVE Investigators. Do the results of randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular drugs influence medical practice? N Engl J Med. 1992;327:241–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kassirer JP. Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1895–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. When doctors meet numbers. Am J Med. 1981;71:991–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Gigerenzer G. The psychology of good judgement: frequency formats and simple algorithms. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:273–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Treatment preferences of patients and physicians: influences of summary data when framing effects are controlled. Med Decis Making. 1990;10:2–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Redelmeier DA, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA. 1995;273(4):302–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ayanian JZ, Hauptman PJ, Guadagnoli E, Antman EM, Pashos CL, McNeil BJ. Knowledge and practices of generalist and specialist physicians regarding drug therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(17):1136–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Freidman PD, Brett AS, Mayo-Smith MF. Differences in generalists’ and cardiologists’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk and the outcomes of preventive therapy in cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:414–21.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Woo B, Woo B, Cook F, Weisberg M, Goldman L. Screening procedures in the asymptomatic adult: comparison of physicians’ recommendations, patients’ desires, published guidelines, and actual practice. JAMA. 1985;254:1480–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Brett AS. Ethical issues in risk factor intervention. Am J Med. 1984;76:557–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sackett DL. The Doctor’s (Ethical and Moral) Dilemma. The Office of Health Economics Annual Lecture. The Office of Health Economics; London, England: 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Redelmeier DA, Tversky A. Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(16):1162–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Elstein AS. Clinical judgement: psychological research and medical practice. Science. 1976;194:696–700.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. McCormick J. The place of judgement in medicine. Br J Gen Pract. 1994;44:50–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Nord E. The person trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:201–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Malenka DJ, Baron JA. Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: the importance of patient-specific attributable risk. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:2247–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Malenka DJ, Baron JA. Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: the attributable risk reduction of diet and drugs. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:1981–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318(26):1728–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. Therapeutic priorities of Canadian internists. Can Med Assoc J. 1990;142(4):329–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Reigelman R, Schroth WS. Adjusting the number needed to treat: incorporating adjustments for the utility and timing of benefits and harms. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:247–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sackett DL, Cook RJ. Understanding clinical trials. BMJ. 1994;304(6957):755–6.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analysis of randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(8):881–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. Number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310(6977):452–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Fahey T, Newton J. Conveying the benefits and risks of treatment. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45(396):339–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Guyatt GH, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ. Applying the findings of clinical trials to individual patients. ACP J Club. 1995;122(2):A12–3.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Shannon H, Walter S, Cook D, Heddle N. Basic statistics for clinicians, 3: assessing the effects of treatment: measures of association. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;152(3):351–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Sackett DL. Applying overviews and meta analyses at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):61–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This work was supported by a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Austrailia, a Research Infrastructure Grant from the University of Newcastle, NSW, and a research grant from the Mater Misericordiae Hospital, Newcastle, NSW.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGettigan, P., Sly, K., O’Connell, D. et al. The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians. J GEN INTERN MED 14, 633–642 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09038.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09038.x

Key words

Navigation