Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34961398›Full record

Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2022

Perceived Social Norms Guide Health Care Decisions for Oneself and Others: A Cross-Sectional Experiment in a US Online Panel.

JoNell Strough, Eric R Stone, Andrew M Parker, Wändi Bruine de Bruin

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

JoNell StroughDepartment of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9228-9742
Eric R StoneDepartment of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Andrew M ParkerBehavioral and Policy Sciences, RAND, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Wändi Bruine de BruinSol Price School of Public Policy, Dornsife Department of Psychology, Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1601-789X

Funding

Enhancing engagement and participation of marginalized community residents in the UASU01AG077280 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Arie Kapteyn · 2023 to 2026
$50.9M
Toward Next Generation Data on Health and Life Changes at Older Ages: Administrative Supplement to track the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on American familiesU01AG054580 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI KAPTEYN, ARIE · 2017 to 2022
$27.3M
Roybal Center for Health Decision Making and Financial Independence in Old AgeP30AG024962 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI KAPTEYN, ARIE · 2004 to 2018
$5.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024962NIA NIH HHS U01 AG054580NIA NIH HHS U01 AG077280
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobal aging has increased the reliance on surrogates to make health care decisions for others. We investigated the differences between making health care decisions and predicting health care decisions, self-other differences for made and predicted health care decisions, and the roles of perceived social norms, emotional closeness, empathy, age, and gender.

methodsParticipants (

resultsWe present 3 key findings. First, made decisions involved less risk taking than predicted decisions, especially for distant others. Second, predicted decisions were similar for others and oneself, but made decisions were less risk taking for others than oneself. People predicted that loved ones would be less risk taking than distant others would be. Third, perceived social norms were more strongly associated than empathy with made and predicted decisions. LIMITATIONS: Hypothetical scenarios may not adequately represent emotional processes in health care decision making.

conclusionsPerceived social norms may sway people to take less risk in health care decisions, especially when making decisions for others. These findings have implications for improving surrogate decision making. HIGHLIGHTS: People made less risky health care decisions for others than for themselves, even though they predicted others would make decisions similar to their own. This has implications for understanding how surrogates apply the substituted judgment standard when making decisions for patients.Perceived social norms were more strongly related to decisions than treatment-recipient (relationship closeness, age) and decision-maker (age, gender, empathy) characteristics. Those who perceived that avoiding health care risks was valued by their social group were less likely to choose risky medical treatments.Understanding the power of perceived social norms in shaping surrogates' decisions may help physicians to engage surrogates in shared decision making.Knowledge of perceived social norms may facilitate the design of decision aids for surrogates.

Indexed as

Decision MakingSocial NormsCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareEmpathyHumanshealth caremedical decisionssocial normssurrogate decisions

Identifiers

PMID34961398
PMCPMC8923988

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.