ArticlePloS one2025
Preference reversals in ethicality judgments of medical treatments.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Socioeconomic barriers to healthcare cost-sharing in the Czech Republic: limited awareness and resistance.Health economics review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In medical ethics, there is often a tradeoff between maximizing treatment efficacy and alleviating patient suffering. We adapt methods from consumer behavior research to examine whether ethicality judgments of medical treatments that vary on these dimensions exhibit preference reversals across tasks and evaluation modes. Specifically, we present participants with pairs of treatments that symmetrically dominate one another: one is more effective, while the other improves patients' quality-of-life. Across three studies (total N = 500), we demonstrate classic preference reversals in lay medical ethics judgments: participants prioritized efficacy over quality-of-life concerns in matching tasks more than choice and rating tasks, in between-subjects (Study 1) and within-subjects (Study 2) designs, and in joint evaluation more than sequential evaluation (Study 3). We interpret these findings in light of previous research on preference reversals in other domains and discuss implications for healthcare and moral psychology.
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.