ArticleBMJ open2016
Does it matter whether physicians' recommendations are given early or late in the decision-making process? An experimental study among patients with schizophrenia.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combination of radiotherapy and ICIs in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review of current evidence and future prospects (Review).Oncology letters · 2025Review
- Attitudes of the police towards individuals with a known psychiatric diagnosis.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- The association between patients' preferred treatment after the use of a patient decision aid and their choice of eventual treatment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPhysicians' recommendations are seen as an essential component in many models of medical decision-making, including shared decision-making. It is, however, unclear at what time in the decision-making process the recommendation is best given, not to adversely influence patient preferences. Within the present study we wanted to evaluate at what time in the decision-making process a doctor's recommendation is best given, not to adversely influence patient preferences.
designWe performed an experimental study involving hypothetical decisions vignettes and compared the influence of 3 conditions (no advice, early advice, late advice) on patients' decision-making.
settingN=21 psychiatric hospitals in Germany.
participantsN=208 inpatients suffering from schizophrenia. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was the number of patients choosing the option in each experimental condition that had been less preferable to most patients during pretests. Additional outcome measures were patient satisfaction and reactance.
resultsPatients in the 'late advice' condition more often (n=49) accepted an advice that was against their preferences compared with the other conditions (n=36 for 'early advice', p=0.024).
conclusionsAlthough giving advice is an important part of every doctor's daily practice and is seen as an essential element of shared decision-making, hitherto there has been little empirical evidence relating to the influence of physicians' advice on patients' decision-making behaviour. With our study we could show that the point in time an advice is given by a physician does have an influence on patients' decisional behaviour even if the mechanism of this effect is not yet understood.
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.