Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30231040›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Perspectives on using decision-making nudges in physician-patient communications.

Ilona Fridman, Joanna L Hart, Kuldeep N Yadav, E Tory Higgins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Shared Decision Making in Patients With Suspected Uncomplicated Ureterolithiasis: A Decision Aid Development Study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The War on Diabetic Retinopathy: Where Are We Now?Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
    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.

Ilona FridmanColumbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6130-3134
Joanna L HartPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Kuldeep N YadavPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
E Tory HigginsColumbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients engaging in shared decision making must weigh the likelihood of positive and negative outcomes and deal with uncertainty and negative emotions in the situations where desirable options might not be available. The use of "nudges," or communication techniques that influence patients' choices in a predictable direction, may assist patients in making complex decisions. However, nudging patients may be perceived as inappropriate influence on patients' choices. We sought to determine whether key stakeholders, physicians, and laypersons without clinical training consider the use of nudges to be ethical and appropriate in medical decision making. Eighty-nine resident-physicians and 336 Mechanical-Turk workers (i.e., non-clinicians) evaluated two hypothetical preference-sensitive situations, in which a patient with advanced cancer chooses between chemotherapy and hospice care. We varied the following: (1) whether or not the patient's decision was influenced by a mistaken judgment (i.e., decision-making bias) and (2) whether or not the physician used a nudge. Each participant reported the extent to which the communication was ethical, appropriate, and desirable. Both physicians and non-clinicians considered using nudges more positively than not using them, regardless of an initial decision-making bias in patients' considerations. Decomposing this effect, we found that physicians viewed the nudge that endorsed hospice care more favorably than the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy, while non-clinicians viewed the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy more favorably than the nudge that endorsed hospice care. We discuss implications and propose exploring further physicians' and patients' differences in the perception of nudges; the differences may suggest limitations for using nudges in medical decisions.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingCommunicationDecision MakingPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAntineoplastic AgentsAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHospice CareHumansMaleNarrationNeoplasmsPhysiciansAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID30231040
PMCPMC6145510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.