ArticlePatient education and counseling2017
Spontaneous mental associations with the words "side effect": Implications for informed and shared decision making.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 vaccine refusal is driven by deliberate ignorance and cognitive distortions.NPJ vaccines · 2024Article
- Biopsychosocial and clinical characteristics in patients with resected breast and colon cancer at the beginning and end of adjuvant treatment.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Making decisions about antipsychotics: a qualitative study of patient experience and the development of a decision aid.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
- Pilot study of decision support tools on breast cancer chemoprevention for high-risk women and healthcare providers in the primary care setting.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo gain insight into patients' medical decisions by exploring the content of laypeople's spontaneous mental associations with the term "side effect."
methodsAn online cross-sectional survey asked 144 women aged 40-74, "What are the first three things you think of when you hear the words 'side effect?"' Data were analyzed using content analysis, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests.
results17 codes emerged and were grouped into 4 themes and a Miscellaneous category: Health Problems (70.8% of participants), Decision-Relevant Evaluations (52.8%), Negative Affect (30.6%), Practical Considerations (18.1%) and Miscellaneous (9.7%). The 4 most frequently identified codes were: Risk (36.1%), Health Problems-Specific Symptoms (35.4%), Health Problems-General Terms (32.6%), and Negative Affect-Strong (19.4%). Code and theme frequencies were generally similar across demographic groups (ps>0.05).
conclusionThe term "side effect" spontaneously elicited comments related to identifying health problems and expressing negative emotions. This might explain why the mere possibility of side effects triggers negative affect for people making medical decisions. Some respondents also mentioned decision-relevant evaluations and practical considerations in response to side effects. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Addressing commonly-held associations and acknowledging negative affects provoked by side effects are first steps healthcare providers can take towards improving informed and shared patient decision making.
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.