Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30172920›Full record

ReviewSocial science & medicine (1982)2018

Understanding health decision making: An exploration of homophily.

Donna L Berry, Traci M Blonquist, Rachel Pozzar, Manan M Nayak

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Social science & medicine (1982), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Loneliness, Self-Efficacy and Adaptive Coping: Mixed Methods Analysis of Mediation in a Peer Support Intervention for Depression.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Donna L BerryDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: donna_berry@dfci.harvard.edu.
Traci M BlonquistDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Rachel PozzarDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA; Northeastern University, Bouvé College of Health Sciences, 360 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Manan M NayakDana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USNortheastern University · US

Funding

Personal Patient Profile-Prostate: Testing and Implementation in Health NetworksR01NR009692 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BERRY, DONNA L. · 2006 to 2015
$4.0M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR009692
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phenomenon of homophily first was described in Lazarsfeld and Merton's classic 1954 friendship analysis as a tendency for friendships to form between those who are alike in some respect. Although theories of decision making address a host of factors that affect the process, the influence of individuals with homophilic ties remains unaccounted for and unexplained. The purpose of this paper is to review theories relevant to decision making and describe what is known about the relationship between homophily and health care decision making. Further, we provide new evidence suggesting the influence of homophily on decision making in results from a randomized, multi-center clinical trial of American men with localized prostate cancer. A diverse sample of 293 men with a new diagnosis of localized prostate cancer reported relevant personal factors influencing the care management decision before randomization to a decision aid or usual care, between 2013 and 2015. Among these personal factors were the level of influence or importance ascribed to various individuals at the time of the treatment decision. One month later, participants reported how prepared they were for decision making. 123 men (42%) reported friends and/or coworkers as information sources, of which 65 (53%) indicated that friends and/or coworkers influenced the care decision. Men who reported friends/coworkers as information sources had significantly higher one-month preparation scores. Our review of decision making theories and practical applicability suggests the influence of homophilic relationships manifests in health care decision making. Faced with a list of options to manage health conditions, decision makers turn to known individuals in their environments, particularly those individuals with whom the decision maker can identify. Clinicians may solicit information from patients about influential others and explain how that support fits into the health decision at hand without dishonoring the importance of the homophilic relationship.

Indexed as

Decision MakingFriendsHumansMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicProstatic NeoplasmsPsychological TheoryRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDecision makingDecision theoryProstate cancerSocial networks

Identifiers

PMID30172920
PMCPMC6367720
OpenAlexW2888750886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.