ArticleThe patient2017
Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information?
Article in The patient, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Putting the Choice in Choice Tasks: Incorporating Preference Elicitation Tasks in Health Preference Research.The patient · 2025Article
- How to Present a Decision Object in Health Preference Research: Attributes and Levels, the Decision Model, and the Descriptive Framework.The patient · 2025Article
- The Effects of Information Continuity and Interpersonal Continuity on Physician Services Online: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Article
- Exploring Decisional Conflict With Measures of Numeracy and Optimism in a Stated Preference Survey.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChoosing a new health service provider can be difficult and is dependent on the type and clarity of the information available. This study examines if the presentation of service quality information affects the decisions of consumers choosing a general medical practice.
objectivesThe aim was to examine the impact of presentation format on attribute level interpretation and relative importance.
methodsA discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences for a general medical practice was conducted using four different presentation formats for service quality attributes: (1) frequency and percentage with an icon array, (2) star ratings, (3) star ratings with a text benchmark, and (4) percentage alone. A total of 1208 respondents from an online panel were randomised to see two formats, answering nine choices for each, where one was a dominated choice. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of presentation format on the probability of choosing a dominated alternative. A generalised multinomial logit model was used to estimate the relative importance of the attribute levels.
resultsThe probability of incorrectly choosing a dominated alternative was significantly higher when the quality information was presented as a percentage relative to a frequency with icon array, star rating or bench-marked star rating. Preferences for a practice did not differ significantly by presentation format, nor did the probability of finding the information difficult to understand.
conclusionsQuantitative health service quality information will be more useful to consumers if presented by combining the numerical information with a graphic, or using a star rating if appropriate for the context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28477080What 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.