You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Original research
Choice architecture in physician–patient communication: a mixed-methods assessments of physicians’ competency
  1. Joanna Hart1,2,3,4,
  2. Kuldeep Yadav1,
  3. Stephanie Szymanski1,
  4. Amy Summer1,
  5. Aaron Tannenbaum1,2,
  6. Julian Zlatev5,
  7. David Daniels6,
  8. Scott D Halpern1,2,3,4
  1. 1 Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  5. 5 Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  6. 6 NUS Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joanna Hart, Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center, Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; joanna.hart{at}pennmedicine.upenn.edu

Abstract

Background Clinicians’ use of choice architecture, or how they present options, systematically influences the choices made by patients and their surrogate decision makers. However, clinicians may incompletely understand this influence.

Objective To assess physicians’ abilities to predict how common choice frames influence people’s choices.

Methods We conducted a prospective mixed-methods study using a scenario-based competency questionnaire and semistructured interviews. Participants were senior resident physicians from a large health system. Of 160 eligible participants, 93 (58.1%) completed the scenario-based questionnaire and 15 completed the semistructured interview. The primary outcome was choice architecture competency, defined as the number of correct answers on the eight-item scenario-based choice architecture competency questionnaire. We generated the scenarios based on existing decision science literature and validated them using an online sample of lay participants. We then assessed senior resident physicians’ choice architecture competency using the questionnaire. We interviewed a subset of participating physicians to explore how they approached the scenario-based questions and their views on choice architecture in clinical medicine and medical education.

Results Physicians’ mean correct score was 4.85 (95% CI 4.59 to 5.11) out of 8 scenario-based questions. Regression models identified no associations between choice architecture competency and measured physician characteristics. Physicians found choice architecture highly relevant to clinical practice. They viewed the intentional use of choice architecture as acceptable and ethical, but felt they lacked sufficient training in the principles to do so.

Conclusion Clinicians assume the role of choice architect whether they realise it or not. Our results suggest that the majority of physicians have inadequate choice architecture competency. The uninformed use of choice architecture by clinicians may influence patients and family members in ways clinicians may not anticipate nor intend.

  • cognitive biases
  • communication
  • decision making
  • graduate medical education
  • human factors

Data availability statement

Protocols and analytic plans are available upon request. The full instruments were included in the supplemental materials. Data may be shared upon reasonable request in alignment with institutional policies.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011801

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Protocols and analytic plans are available upon request. The full instruments were included in the supplemental materials. Data may be shared upon reasonable request in alignment with institutional policies.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @JHartMD, @KuldeepNYadav

    • Correction notice The article has been corrected since it was published online first. The affiliation of the co-author David Daniels has been updated to NUS Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

    • Contributors All authors made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data. All authors were involved in drafting the work or revising and reviewing it critically for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval of the version published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

    • Funding This study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL132065) and Leonard Davis Institute - Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics Penn Roybal Center, National Institute on Aging (P30AG034546).

    • Disclaimer The funding sources played no role in designing the study, interpreting the data, or writing and publishing the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

    Linked Articles