Trial reportProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020
Decisional autonomy undermines advisees' judgments of experts in medicine and in life.
Trial report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aligning Care to Cognitive Style: A 4-Question Framework for Patient-Centered Dermatology Visits.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2026Article
- Congruence of cancer patients' desired and achieved decision-making roles between self, doctor and family: a cross-sectional multi-site survey.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- The Reasonable, the Rational, and the Good: On Folk Theories of Deliberative Judgment.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Enhancing doctor-patient relationships in community health care institutions: the Patient Oriented Four Habits Model (POFHM) trial-a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial protocol.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Targeted Toxicities: Protocols for Monitoring the Adverse Events of Targeted Therapies Used in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Cognitive and behavioural bias in advance care planning.Palliative care and social practice · 2022Article
- Barriers to Adult Cochlear Implant Care in the United States: An Analysis of Health Care Delivery.Seminars in hearing · 2021Review
- "They don't Know Better than I do": People Prefer Seeing for Themselves Over Using the Wisdom of Crowds in Perceptual Decision Making.Journal of cognition · 2021Article
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
Over the past several decades, the United States medical system has increasingly prioritized patient autonomy. Physicians routinely encourage patients to come to their own decisions about their medical care rather than providing patients with clearer yet more paternalistic advice. Although political theorists, bioethicists, and philosophers generally see this as a positive trend, the present research examines the important question of how patients and advisees in general react to full decisional autonomy when making difficult decisions under uncertainty. Across six experiments (
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.