PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jonathan Baron

Publications and source records attributed to Jonathan Baron.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Ignorance of hedonic adaptation to hemodialysis: a study using ecological momentary assessment.

Healthy people generally underestimate the self-reported well-being of people with disabilities and serious illnesses. The cause of this discrepancy is in dispute, and the present study provides evidence for 2 causes. First, healthy people fail to anticipate hedonic adaptation to poor health. Using an ecological momentary assessment measure of mood, the authors failed to find evidence that hemodialysis patients are less happy than healthy nonpatients are, suggesting that they have largely, if not completely, adapted to their condition. In a forecasting task, healthy people failed to anticipate this adaptation. Second, although controls understated their own mood in both an estimation task and a recall task, patients were quite accurate in both tasks. This relative negativity in controls' estimates of their own moods could also contribute to their underestimation of the moods and overall well-being of patients.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2005

How bad is a 10% chance of losing a toe? Judgments of probabilistic conditions by doctors and laypeople.

We presented a Web questionnaire to 139 physicians and medical researchers and 109 laypeople. The subjects made judgments of badness and importance of prevention for eight medical conditions at each of seven different probability levels. By assuming that the response to each of the 56 risks was monotonically related to transformations of the probability and of the disutility of the condition, we could assess the relative effect of probability and disutility on each subject's judgments. Physicians' judgments were more sensitive than laypeople's judgments to changes in probability. Older and female laypeople were less sensitive to probability (and correspondingly, more responsive to differences in severity among medical conditions). Laypeople varied more than physicians in their responsiveness to probability. These results point to general individual differences in the effect of probability on evaluations of medical risks. They may also provide insight into causes and noncauses of physician-patient miscommunication.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: exploring the gap.

We examined the risk perception that is derived from hypothetical physician risk communications. Subjects (n= 217) completed a questionnaire on the Web for $3. Subjects were presented with four hypothetical cancer risk scenarios that included a physician risk communication in one of three risk communication formats: verbal only, verbal plus numeric probability as a percent, and verbal plus numeric probability as a fraction. In each scenario, subjects were asked to imagine themselves as the patient described and to state their perceived personal susceptibility to the cancer (i.e., risk perception) on a 0 to 100 scale, as well as responses to other measures. Subjects' risk perceptions were highly variable, spanning nearly the entire probability scale for each scenario, and the degree of variation was only slightly less in the risk communication formats in which a numeric statement of risk was provided. Subjects were more likely to overestimate than underestimate their risk relative to the stated risk in the numeric versions, and overestimation was associated with the belief that the physician minimized the risk so they wouldn't worry, innumeracy, and worry, as well as decisions about testing for the cancer. These results demonstrate significant gaps between the intended message and the message received in physician risk communications. Implications for medical decisions, patient distress, and future research are discussed.

Communication↗
PubMed2003

The influence of cost-effectiveness information on physicians' cancer screening recommendations.

Physicians are increasingly faced with choices in which one screening strategy is both more effective and more expensive than another. One way to make such choices is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the more costly strategy over the less costly one. However, little is known about how cost-effectiveness information influences physicians' screening decisions. We surveyed 900 primary care US physicians, and presented each with a hypothetical cancer-screening scenario. We created three familiar screening scenarios, involving cervical, colon, and breast cancer. We also created three unfamiliar screening scenarios. Physicians were randomized to receive one of nine questionnaires, each containing one screening scenario. Three questionnaires posed one of the familiar screening scenarios without cost-effectiveness information, three posed one of the familiar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information, and three posed one of the unfamiliar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information. The cost-effectiveness information for familiar scenarios was drawn from the medical literature. The cost-effectiveness information for unfamiliar scenarios was fabricated to match that of a corresponding familiar scenario. In all questionnaires, physicians were asked what screening alternative they would recommend. A total of 560 physicians responded (65%). For familiar scenarios, providing cost-effectiveness information had at most a small influence on physicians' screening recommendations; it reduced the proportion of physicians recommending annual Pap smears (p=0.003), but did not significantly alter the aggressiveness of colon cancer and breast cancer screening (both p's<0.1). For all three unfamiliar scenarios, physicians were significantly less likely to recommend expensive screening strategies than in corresponding familiar scenarios (all p's<0.001). Physicians' written explanations revealed a number of factors that moderated the influence of cost-effectiveness information on their screening recommendations. Providing physicians with cost-effectiveness information had only a moderate influence on their screening recommendations for cervical, colon, and breast cancer. Significantly, fewer physicians recommended aggressive screening for unfamiliar cancers than for familiar ones, despite similar cost-effectiveness. Physicians are relatively reluctant to abandon common screening strategies, even when they learn that they are expensive, and are hesitant to adopt unfamiliar screening strategies, even when they learn that they are inexpensive.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios: will physicians make a distinction?

Physicians are increasingly asked to use cost-effectiveness information when evaluating alternative health care interventions. Little is known about how the way such information is presented can influence medical decision making. We presented physicians with hypothetical screening scenarios with multiple options, varying the type of cost-effectiveness ratios provided as well as whether the scenarios described cancer screening settings that were familiar or unfamiliar. Half the scenarios used average cost-effectiveness ratios, as commonly reported, calculating benefits and costs relative to a no-screening option. The other half used the preferred incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with each option's benefits and costs calculated relative to the next best alternative. Relative to average cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-effectiveness information significantly reduced preference for the most expensive screening strategies in two of three unfamiliar scenarios. No such difference was found for familiar scenarios, for which physicians likely have established practice patterns. These results suggest that, in unfamiliar settings, average cost-effectiveness ratios as reported in many analyses reported in the literature can hide the often high price for achieving incremental health care goals, potentially causing physicians to choose interventions with poor cost effectiveness.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2003

A scaly rash.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Acrodermatitis↗
PubMed2003

When money is saved by reducing healthcare costs, where do US primary care physicians think the money goes?

BACKGROUND: Physician willingness to reduce medical costs is mixed. Some physicians might be unwilling to reduce medical costs because they are concerned about where the savings would go. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary care physicians might be less willing to choose a less expensive, less effective cancer screening alternative if they believe that the money saved goes to insurance companies. DESIGN: Anonymous mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 865 US primary care physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to one of several clinical vignettes presenting a choice between a less expensive, less effective cancer screening option and a more expensive, more effective alternative and responses to where physicians thought the savings might go if they chose the cheaper alternative. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of physicians chose the most expensive screening alternative. In aggregate, physicians responded that more of any money saved would go to the managers or owners of insurance companies than to increased clinical services or reduced insurance premiums. Physicians choosing the more expensive screening test were more likely to believe that money saved from choosing the less expensive test would go to insurance company profits and salaries rather than to increased clinical services or reduced premiums (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although US primary care physicians vary in where they think money saved in healthcare goes, most believe that more of it goes to the salaries of insurance company executives and the profits of insurance company owners than to improved clinical services or reduced premiums. The more physicians believe that this is where the money goes, the less willing they are to reduce healthcare costs.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2002

Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations.

BACKGROUND: The person trade-off (PTO) has been advocated by some as an alternative measure for the purposes of cost-effectiveness analyses. However, the measurement properties of PTO elicitations are still being defined. METHODS: We presented subjects with two PTO scenarios. In the pre-existing paraplegia scenario, they were asked how many paraplegics' lives would have to be saved to be just as important as saving 100 'normal' people's lives. In the paraplegia onset scenario, they were asked how many patients who would experience the onset of paraplegia need to be saved to equal the benefit of saving 100 'normal' lives. We varied the order of the two scenarios across subjects to test whether PTO elicitations are susceptible to order effects. In addition, we varied whether subjects were required to provide a numerical response to the first elicitation. RESULTS: Subjects' PTO indifference points for the two scenarios varied dramatically depending on the order with which they received the scenarios, and according to whether the first elicitation required a numerical response. For those subjects providing numerical responses to both elicitations, median PTO responses varied by a factor of close to two in the pre-existing paraplegia scenario and by a factor of eight in the paraplegia onset scenario. However, the magnitude of the order effect was significantly reduced when subjects were not asked to provide a numerical response to the first PTO elicitation. CONCLUSION: PTO elicitations are susceptible to order effects. These order effects are partly due to numerical anchoring. However, other cognitive factors contribute to the order effect. Further research should clarify whether these order effects can be reduced.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Response Mode Effects and Moral Values.

In five studies, we measured the extent to which subjects weight moral product attributes in different response modes. We found that nonprice judgments such as likelihood of purchase ratings were more reflective of expressed moral attitudes than were pricing responses, and that holistic price evaluations were especially unlikely to reflect moral considerations. Post-task ratings confirmed the preference results, as did an experiment controlling for the influence of task goals. Our results have implications for compatibility theories of preference elicitation, the predictability of respondent ratings of attribute unacceptability, and the measurement of utilities for morally charged attributes. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The role of physicians' recommendations in medical treatment decisions.

BACKGROUND: A shift away from the medical paternalism of the past has occurred, and today, the law and ethics advocate that physicians share decision-making responsibility with their patients. It is unclear, however, what the appropriate role of physicians' recommendations ought to be in this new shared decision-making paradigm. One way to approach this question is to assess the influence of physicians' recommendations. OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors examine the influence of physicians' recommendations on hypothetical treatment decisions. Do physicians' recommendations influence treatment decisions in scenarios where the decision that maximizes health is obvious and apparent to subjects? Do recommendations pull subjects away from the treatment choice that they otherwise prefer (based on their decision when unaware of the physicians' recommendation)? DESIGN: An experimental web questionnaire presented hypothetical medical treatment scenarios in which the treatment choice that maximized health was obvious. Across scenarios, the authors varied physicians' recommendations in 3 ways: (1) physicians' recommendations supporting what maximized health, (2) physicians' recommendations that went against what maximized health, and (3) no physicians' recommendation. The participants were 102 volunteers. RESULTS: Hypothetical treatment decisions were significantly influenced by physicians'recommendations (P < 0.0001), and physicians'recommendations against the decision that maximized health pulled subjects away from the treatment decision that they made when no recommendation was given (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Physicians' recommendations can lead people to make decisions that go against what is best and against what they would otherwise prefer. Physicians must take care in making recommendations and should incorporate patient preferences into their recommendations.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: a web study.

Three experiments on the World Wide Web asked subjects to rate the severity of common health disorders such as acne or arthritis. People who had a disorder ("Haves") tended to rate it as less severe than people who did not have it ("Not-haves"). Two explanations of this Have versus Not-have discrepancy were rejected. By one account, people change their reference point when they rate a disorder that they have. More precise reference points would, on this account, reduce the discrepancy, but, if anything, the discrepancy was larger. By another account, people who do not have the disorder focus on attributes that are most affected by it, and the discrepancy should decrease when people make ratings on several attributes. Again, if anything, the discrepancy increased when ratings were on separate attributes (combined by a weighted average). The discrepancy varied in size and direction across disorders. Subjects also thought that they would be less affected than others.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The validity of person tradeoff measurements: randomized trial of computer elicitation versus face-to-face interview.

Can person tradeoff (PTO) value judgments be elicited by a computer, or is a face-to-face interview needed? The authors randomly assigned 95 subjects to interview or computer methods for the PTO, a valuation measure that is often difficult for subjects. They measured relative values of foot numbness, leg paralysis, and quadriplegia (all 3 pairs) at 2 reference group sizes (10 or 100). Relative values did not differ between computer and interview. Overall, 21% of responses were equality responses, 13% were high extreme values, and 5% violated ordinal criteria. The groups did not differ in these measures. The authors also assessed consistency across reference group size (10 v. 100). Although relative values were significantly lower for 100 than for 10, mode did not influence the size of this effect. Subjects made, on average, equally consistent judgments for the 3 comparisons. A computerized PTO elicitation protocol produced results of similar quality to that of a face-to-face interview.

Demography↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication.

OBJECTIVE: To contribute to the debate about whether numeric statements of risk ought to be included in risk communications. DESIGN: Subjects (n = 115) completed a questionnaire involving a physician risk communication and 4 scenarios, each of which described a patient with symptoms and signs potentially suggestive of cancer. Each scenario was presented in 3 risk communication versions (a verbal version and 2 numeric versions) in a within-subject 4 x 3 design. Subjects rated their trust in and comfort with the information and their belief that the physician distorted their risk level. RESULTS: Subjects were significantly more trusting of (t =4.0, P < 0.001) and comfortable with (t =3.4, P = 0.001) the risk information, less likely to believe that the physician minimized the risk in the numeric versions than verbal versions (t =4.3, P < 0.0001), and just as likely to believe that the physician exaggerated the risk in the 2 versions (P = 0.588). CONCLUSIONS: Including a numeric statement of risk in a risk communication can increase trust and belief in and comfort with the risk information.

Humans↗