ArticleQuality in health care : QHC2001
Differences in belief about likely outcomes account for differences in doctors' treatment preferences: but what accounts for the differences in belief?
Article in Quality in health care : QHC, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of implementation strategies for risk tables in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases.Vascular health and risk management · 2008Pooled it
- Improving patient adherence to lifestyle advice (IMPALA): a cluster-randomised controlled trial on the implementation of a nurse-led intervention for cardiovascular risk management in primary care (protocol).BMC health services research · 2008Trial
- Assessment of the effectiveness of hospital external disaster functional drills on health care receivers' performance, using standardized patients and mass cards simulation: a pilot study from Saudi Arabia.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Who Can Be the Standardized Patient in Disaster Medical Full-Scale Exercise, Freshman, or Professional?Journal of acute medicine · 2022Article
- Ethical issues after pre-natal diagnosis.Translational pediatrics · 2021Review
- "Functionally" univentricular hearts: impact of pre-natal diagnosis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2015Review
- How not to tell parents about their child's new diagnosis of congenital heart disease: an Internet survey of 841 parents.Pediatric cardiology · 2014Article
- When there is too much to do: how practicing physicians prioritize among recommended interventions.Journal of general internal medicine · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Doctors, patients, and their relatives face a complex decision when there are multiple treatment options that differ in their profiles of risk and benefit over time. Doctors from a single specialist paediatric cardiac unit participated in a correlational study that used a novel tool (subjective multi-state survival graphs) to elicit their beliefs about the likely outcome of different treatments. Doctors' preferences were more closely related to their beliefs about long term, rather than short term, outcomes. This is consistent with placing greater value on far future than on immediate life years, highlighting the importance of incorporating patients' values for these outcomes into decisions of this kind. Beliefs about likely outcomes differed with whether or not doctors encountered former paediatric patients who were now adults, illustrating the difficulty of deciding what risk information should be available when the evidence base on outcomes is limited. Some problems of risk communication are identified, and the value of multi-state survival graphs as an aid to communication is discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.