ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2015
Behavioral economic insights into physician tobacco treatment decision-making.
Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Codevelopment of a Digital Screening and Intervention Tool to Improve Lifestyle Habits in Children: Focus Group Study With Parents and Clinicians.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
- A formative study to develop nudges informed by behavioral economics to increase engagement with tobacco treatment among people who smoke receiving care for HIV.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2025Article
- Self-Reported Medical Errors and Primary Care Physicians' Performance and Confidence in Delivering Care: A Multilevel Empirical Study in China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Protocol for a type 3 hybrid implementation cluster randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of patient and clinician nudges to advance the use of genomic medicine across a diverse health system.Implementation science : IS · 2024Article
- Using the Translational Science Benefits Model to assess the impact of the Penn Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Behavioral Economics and Tobacco Control: Current Practices and Future Opportunities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Tobacco Use Disorder.The Medical clinics of North America · 2022Review
- Rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve tobacco treatment rates for cancer patients who smoke.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Initiating Pharmacologic Treatment in Tobacco-Dependent Adults. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Implicit attribution of culpability and impact on experience of treating tobacco dependence.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2019Article
- Physician engagement: a concept analysis.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2019Article
- Recommendations for the Appropriate Structure, Communication, and Investigation of Tobacco Harm Reduction Claims. An Official American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2018Article
- Nicotine Dependence: Future Opportunities and Emerging Clinical Challenges.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2018Article
- Practice Patterns and Perceptions of Chest Health Care Providers on Electronic Cigarette Use: An In-Depth Discussion and Report of Survey Results.Journal of smoking cessation · 2018Article
- Live, Learn, Pass It on: A Patient Advocacy Engagement Project on the Lived Experience of Lung Cancer Survivors.Journal of patient experience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationalePhysicians self-report high adherence rates for Ask and Advise behaviors of tobacco dependence treatment but are much less likely to engage in "next steps" consistent with sophisticated management of chronic illness. A variety of potential explanations have been offered, yet each lacks face validity in light of experience with other challenging medical conditions.
objectiveConduct a preliminary exploration of the behavioral economics of tobacco treatment decision-making in the face of uncertain outcomes, seeking evidence that behaviors may be explained within the framework of Prospect Theory.
methodsFour physician cohorts were polled regarding their impressions of the utility of tobacco use treatment and their estimations of "success" probabilities. Contingent valuation was estimated by asking respondents to make monetary tradeoffs relative to three common chronic conditions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsResponses from all four cohorts showed a similar pattern of high utility of tobacco use treatment but low success probability when compared with the other chronic medical conditions. Following instructional methods aimed at controverting cognitive biases related to tobacco, this pattern was reversed, with success probabilities attaining higher valuation than for diabetes.
conclusionsImportant presuppositions regarding the potential "success" of tobacco-related patient interactions are likely limiting physician engagement by favoring the most secure visit outcome despite the limited potential for health gains. Under these conditions, low engagement rates would be consistent with Prospect Theory predictions. Interventions aimed at counteracting the cognitive biases limiting estimations of success probabilities seem to effectively reverse this pattern and provide clues to improving the adoption of target clinical behaviors.
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.