Background. The role of cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making is of growing interest. The purpose of this study was to determine whether studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on actual or hypothetical decisions and are conducted with populations that are representative of those who typically make the medical decision; to categorize the types of cognitive biases and heuristics found and whether they are found in patients or in medical personnel; and to critically review the studies based on standard methodological quality criteria. Method. Data sources were original, peer-reviewed, empirical studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making found in Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, and the CINAHL databases published in 1980–2013. Predefined exclusion criteria were used to identify 213 studies. During data extraction, information was collected on type of bias or heuristic studied, respondent population, decision type, study type (actual or hypothetical), study method, and study conclusion. Results. Of the 213 studies analyzed, 164 (77%) were based on hypothetical vignettes, and 175 (82%) were conducted with representative populations. Nineteen types of cognitive biases and heuristics were found. Only 34% of studies (n = 73) investigated medical personnel, and 68% (n = 145) confirmed the presence of a bias or heuristic. Each methodological quality criterion was satisfied by more than 50% of the studies, except for sample size and validated instruments/questions. Limitations are that existing terms were used to inform search terms, and study inclusion criteria focused strictly on decision making. Conclusions. Most of the studies on biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on hypothetical vignettes, raising concerns about applicability of these findings to actual decision making. Biases and heuristics have been underinvestigated in medical personnel compared with patients.
KahnemanDSlovicPTverskyA. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. 1st ed.New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
2.
KahnemanDTverskyA. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University Press; 2000.
3.
GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. 1st ed.New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
4.
DawsonNVArkesHR. Systematic errors in medical decision making: judgment limitations. J Gen Intern Med. 1987;2(3):183–7.
5.
DawsonNV. Physician judgment in clinical settings: methodological influences and cognitive performance. Clin Chem. 1993;39(7):1468–80.
6.
ElsteinAS. Heuristics and biases: selected errors in clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 1999;74(7):791–4.
7.
PatelVLKaufmanDRArochaJF. Emerging paradigms of cognition in medical decision-making. J Biomed Inform. 2002;35(1):52–75.
8.
KahnemanDTverskyA. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263.
9.
ColmanA. Group think: bandwagon effect. In: Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003:77.
10.
SugarmanDB. Active versus passive euthanasia: an attributional analysis. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1986;16(1):60–76.
11.
KeysDJSchwartzB. “Leaky” rationality: how research on behavioral decision making challenges normative standards of rationality. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007;2:162–80.
StalmeierPVolkRAbhyankarP. 2012updated chapter I: balancing the presentation of information and options. Available from: URL: http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS-Chapter-I.pdf
18.
SlovicP. The construction of preference. In: KahnemanDTverskyA, eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University Press; 2000. p 489–502.
19.
UbelPA. Critical Decisions: How You and Your Doctor Can Make the Right Medical Choices Together. 1st ed.New York: HarperOne; 2012.
20.
ChapmanGB. Time discounting of health outcomes. In: LoewensteinGReadDBaumeisterRF, eds. Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Intertemporal Choice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2003. p 395–418.
21.
CroskerryP. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775–80.
22.
BennettCKhanguraSBrehautJC. Reporting guidelines for survey research: an analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Med. 2011;8(8):e1001069.
23.
KhoMEEvaKWCookDJBrouwersMC. The Completeness of Reporting (CORE) index identifies important deficiencies in observational study conference abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(12):1241–9.
24.
MeyrickJ. What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. J Health Psychol. 2006;11(5):799–808.
25.
IsenAMRosenzweigASYoungMJ. The influence of positive affect on clinical problem solving. Med Decis Making. 1991;11(3):221–7.
26.
MyersRE. Decision counseling in cancer prevention and control. Health Psychol. 2005;24(suppl 4):S71–7.
27.
SharmanSJ. Current negative mood encourages changes in end-of-life treatment decisions and is associated with false memories. Cogn Emot. 2011;25(1):132–9.
28.
KellerPALipkusIRimerB. Affect, framing, and persuasion. J Market Res. 2003;40(1):54–64.
29.
SmithSWHamelLMKotowskiMR. Action tendency emotions evoked by memorable breast cancer messages and their association with prevention and detection behaviors. Health Commun. 2010;25(8):737–46.
30.
FoxCRTverskyA. Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. In: KahnemanDTverskyA, eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University Press; 2000. p 528–42.
31.
BaronJHolzmanGBSchulkinJ. Attitudes of obstetricians and gynecologists toward hormone replacement therapy. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(4):406–11.
32.
GellerGTamborESChaseGAHoltzmanNA. Measuring physicians’ tolerance for ambiguity and its relationship to their reported practices regarding genetic testing. Med Care. 1993;31(11):989–1001.
33.
RedelmeierDAKoehlerDJLibermanVTverskyA. Probability judgment in medicine: discounting unspecified possibilities. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(3):227–30.
34.
ZaatJOvan EijkJT. General practitioners’ uncertainty, risk preference, and use of laboratory tests. Med Care. 1992;30(9):846–54.
35.
BierVMConnellBL. Ambiguity seeking in multi-attribute decisions: effects of optimism and message framing. J Behav Decis Mak. 1994;7(3):169–82.
36.
KahnemanDRitovISchkadeD. Economic preferences or attitude expression?An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. In: KahnemanDTverskyA, eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University Press; 2000. p 642–72.
37.
BrewerNTChapmanGBSchwartzJABergusGR. The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):203–11.
38.
KremerMJFaut-CallahanMHicksFD. A study of clinical decision making by certified registered nurse anesthetists. AANA J. 2002;70(5):391–7.
39.
LauAYSCoieraEW. Do people experience cognitive biases while searching for information?J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(5):599–608.
40.
LeblancVRBrooksLRNormanGR. Believing is seeing: the influence of a diagnostic hypothesis on the interpretation of clinical features. Acad Med. 2002;77(suppl 10):S67–9.
41.
OgdieARReillyJBPangWG. Seen through their eyes: residents’ reflections on the cognitive and contextual components of diagnostic errors in medicine. Acad Med. 2012;87(10):1361–7.
42.
RivaPRusconiPMontaliLCherubiniP. The influence of anchoring on pain judgment. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011;42(2):265–77.
43.
WolfsonAMDoctorJNBurnsSP. Clinician judgments of functional outcomes: how bias and perceived accuracy affect rating. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81(12):1567–74.
44.
WoodwardHETaftCTGordonRAMeisLA. Clinician bias in the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder. Psychol Trauma. 2009;1(4):282–90.
45.
KahnemanDTverskyA. Introduction judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In: KahnemanDSlovicPTverskyA, eds. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
46.
ArmstrongKWeinerJWeberBAschDA. Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: who and why. Genet Med. 2003;5(2):92–8.
47.
BrinkmanWBShermanSNZmitrovichAR. Parental angst making and revisiting decisions about treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics. 2009;124(2):580–9.
48.
CavazosJMNaikADWoofterAAbrahamNS. Barriers to physician adherence to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug guidelines: a qualitative study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28(6):789–98.
49.
ChoudhryNKAndersonGMLaupacisARoss-DegnanDNormandS-LTSoumeraiSB. Impact of adverse events on prescribing warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: matched pair analysis. BMJ. 2006;332(7534):141–5.
50.
CioffiJ. A study of the use of past experiences in clinical decision making in emergency situations. Int J Nurs Stud. 2001;38(5):591–9.
51.
DaleWHemmerichJGhiniEASchwarzeML. Can induced anxiety from a negative earlier experience influence vascular surgeons’ statistical decision-making? A randomized field experiment with an abdominal aortic aneurysm analog. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203(5):642–52.
52.
DillardAJFagerlinADal CinSZikmund-FisherBJUbelPA. Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(1):45–52.
53.
FacioneNCFacionePA. The cognitive structuring of patient delay in breast cancer. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(12):3137–49.
54.
FarrellMHMurphyMASchneiderCE. How underlying patient beliefs can affect physician-patient communication about prostate-specific antigen testing. Eff Clin Pract. 2002;5(3):120–9.
55.
FraenkelLMcGrawSWongcharatraweeSGarcia-TsaoG. What do patients consider when making decisions about treatment for hepatitis C?Am J Med. 2005;118(12):1387–91.
56.
FreymuthAKRonanGF. Modeling patient decision-making: the role of base-rate and anecdotal information. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2004;11(3):211–6.
57.
KenenRArdern-JonesAEelesR. Family stories and the use of heuristics: women from suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families. Sociol Health Illn. 2003;25(7):838–65.
58.
PeayMYPeayER. The evaluation of medical symptoms by patients and doctors. J Behav Med. 1998;21(1):57–81.
59.
PosesRMAnthonyM. Availability, wishful thinking, and physicians’ diagnostic judgments for patients with suspected bacteremia. Med Decis Making. 1991;11(3):159–68.
60.
ShenORabinowitzRGeistRRShafirE. Effect of background case characteristics on decisions in the delivery room. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(4):518–22.
61.
StieglerMPNeelankavilJPCanalesCDhillonA. Cognitive errors detected in anaesthesiology: a literature review and pilot study. Br J Anaesth. 2011;108(2):229–35.
62.
UbelPAJepsonCBaronJ. The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: effects on treatment choices. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):60–8.
63.
VolandesAEPaasche-OrlowMKBarryMJ. Video decision support tool for advance care planning in dementia: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;338:b2159.
64.
WilliamsAFManiasEWalkerR. The role of irrational thought in medicine adherence: people with diabetic kidney disease. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(10):2108–17.
65.
WinterbottomAEBekkerHLConnerMMooneyAF. Patient stories about their dialysis experience biases others’ choices regardless of doctor’s advice: an experimental study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(1):325–31.
66.
CioffiJ. Decision making by emergency nurses in triage assessments. Accid Emerg Nurs. 1998;6(4):184–91.
67.
MamedeSvan GogTvan den BergeK. Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA. 2010;304(11):1198–203.
68.
AllenJDMohllajeeAPSheltonRCOthusMKDFontenotHBHannaR. Stage of adoption of the human papillomavirus vaccine among college women. Prev Med. 2009;48(5):420–5.
69.
AllisonMAReyesMYoungP. Parental attitudes about influenza immunization and school-based immunization for school-aged children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010;29(8):751–5.
70.
BrownRLBaumannLJHelbergCPHanYFontanaSALoveRR. The simultaneous analysis of patient, physician and group practice influences on annual mammography performance. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(3):315–24.
71.
DaleyMFCraneLAChandramouliV. Influenza among healthy young children: changes in parental attitudes and predictors of immunization during the 2003 to 2004 influenza season. Pediatrics. 2006;117(2):e268–77.
72.
DaleyMFCraneLAChandramouliV. Misperceptions about influenza vaccination among parents of healthy young children. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2007;46(5):408–17.
73.
De VisserRWaitesLParikhCLawrieA. The importance of social norms for uptake of catch-up human papillomavirus vaccination in young women. Sex Health. 2011;8(3):330–7.
74.
Duffett-LegerLALetourneauNLCrollJC. Cervical cancer screening practices among university women. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37(5):572–81.
75.
GarganoLMPainterJESalesJM. Seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine uptake, predictors of vaccination, and self-reported barriers to vaccination among secondary school teachers and staff. Hum Vaccin. 2011;7(1):89–95.
76.
Zikmund-FisherBJWindschitlPDExeNUbelPA. “I’ll do what they did”: social norm information and cancer treatment decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(2):225–9.
77.
CroskerryP. Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9(11):1184–204.
78.
FagerlinAZikmund-FisherBJUbelPA. Cure me even if it kills me: preferences for invasive cancer treatment. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(6):614–9.
79.
GavaruzziTLottoLRumiatiRFagerlinA. What makes a tumor diagnosis a call to action? On the preference for action versus inaction. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(2):237–44.
80.
RossLAndersonCA. Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments. In: KahnemanDSlovicPTverskyA, eds. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
81.
FlachSDCanarisGJTapeTGHuntleyKMWigtonRS. The effects of proficiency and bias on residents’ interpretation of the microscopic urinalysis. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(4):318–25.
82.
TschanFSemmerNKGurtnerA. Explicit reasoning, confirmation bias, and illusory transactive memory: a simulation study of group medical decision making. Small Group Research. 2009;40(3):271–300.
HuberJPayneJWPutoC. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J Consum Res. 1982;9(1):90–8.
85.
RedelmeierDAShafirE. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA. 1995;273(4):302–5.
86.
RubaltelliEBurraPSartoratoV. Strengthening acceptance for xenotransplantation: the case of attraction effect. Xenotransplantation. 2008;15(3):159–63.
87.
SchwartzJAChapmanGB. Are more options always better? The attraction effect in physicians’ decisions about medications. Med Decis Making. 1999;19(3):315–23.
88.
RoswarskiTEMurrayMD. Supervision of students may protect academic physicians from cognitive bias: a study of decision making and multiple treatment alternatives in medicine. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(2):154–61.
89.
TverskyAKnetschJ, eds. Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. In: Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University Press; 2000. p 159–70.
90.
KresselLMChapmanGB. The default effect in end-of-life medical treatment preferences. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(3):299–310.
91.
KresselLMChapmanGBLeventhalE. The influence of default options on the expression of end-of-life treatment preferences in advance directives. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(7):1007–10.
92.
SalkeldGRyanMShortL. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?Health Econ. 2000;9(3):267–70.
93.
BaronJRitovI. Reference points and omission bias. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;59(3):475–98.
94.
SlovicPMonahanJMacGregorDG. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Hum Behav. 2000;24(3):271–96.
95.
TimmermansDRMOckhuysen-VermeyCFHennemanL. Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants’ cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):443–7.
96.
TverskyAGriffinD. Endowments and contrast in judgments of well-being. In: KahnemanDTverskyA, eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University Press; 2000. p 709–25.
97.
BuickDLPetrieKJ. “I know just how you feel”: the validity of healthy women’s perceptions of breast-cancer patients receiving treatment. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(1):110–23.
98.
LaceyHPFagerlinALoewensteinGSmithDMRiisJUbelP. It must be awful for them: perspective and task context affects ratings for health conditions. Judgm Decis Mak. 2006;1(2):146–52.
99.
RiisJLoewensteinGBaronJJepsonCFagerlinAUbelPA. Ignorance of hedonic adaptation to hemodialysis: a study using ecological momentary assessment. J Exp Psychol. 2005;134(1):3–9.
100.
SlevinMLStubbsLPlantHJ. Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public. BMJ. 1990;300(6737):1458–60.
101.
SlotKBBergeE. Thrombolytic treatment for stroke: patient preferences for treatment, information, and involvement. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;18(1):17–22.
102.
SmithDLoewensteinGJepsonCJankovichAFeldmanHUbelP. Mispredicting and misremembering: patients with renal failure overestimate improvements in quality of life after a kidney transplant. Health Psychol. 2008;27(5):653–8.
103.
SmithDMSherriffRLDamschroderLLoewensteinGUbelPA. Misremembering colostomies? Former patients give lower utility ratings than do current patients. Health Psychol. 2006;25(6):688–95.
104.
WalshEAytonP. What would it be like for me and for you? Judged impact of chronic health conditions on happiness. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(1):15–22.
105.
WinterLMossMSHoffmanC. Affective forecasting and advance care planning: anticipating quality of life in future health statuses. J Health Psychol. 2009;14(3):447–56.
106.
WalshEAytonP. My imagination versus your feelings: can personal affective forecasts be improved by knowing other peoples’ emotions?J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009;15(4):351–60.
107.
KahnemanDKnetschJThalerRH. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. In: KahnemanDTverskyA, eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University Press; 2000. p 143–58.
108.
AbhyankarPO’ConnorDBLawtonR. The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: evidence of a loss-frame advantage. Psychol Health Med. 2008;13(1):1–16.
AboodDACosterDCMullisAKBlackDR. Evaluation of a “loss-framed” minimal intervention to increase mammography utilization among medically un- and under-insured women. Cancer Detect Prev. 2002;28(5):394–400.
111.
AlmashatSAyotteBEdelsteinBMargrettJ. Framing effect debiasing in medical decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71(1):102–7.
112.
ArmstrongKSchwartzJSFitzgeraldGPuttMUbelPA. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(1):76–83.
113.
BanksSMSaloveyPGreenerS. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol. 1995;14(2):178–84.
114.
BrandstätterEMückeR. Interpreting test results. Pers Indiv Differ. 2009;46(2):183–6.
115.
CarlingCLLKristoffersenDTOxmanAD. The effect of how outcomes are framed on decisions about whether to take antihypertensive medication: a randomized trial. PLoS One. 2010;5(3):e9469.
DruckmanJNMcDermottR. Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Polit Behav. 2008;30(3):297–321.
118.
FerrerRAKleinWMPZajacLELandSRLingBS. An affective booster moderates the effect of gain- and loss-framed messages on behavioral intentions for colorectal cancer screening. J Behav Med. 2012;35(4):452–61.
119.
FosterKHHarrisonE. Effect of presentation bias on selection of treatment option for failed endodontic therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106(5):e36–9.
120.
GradyJLEntinEBEntinEEBrunyéTT. Using message framing to achieve long-term behavioral changes in persons with diabetes. Appl Nurs Res. 2011;24(1):22–8.
121.
HawardMFMurphyROLorenzJM. Message framing and perinatal decisions. Pediatrics. 2008;122(1):109–18.
122.
JasperJGoelREinarsonAGalloMKorenG. Effects of framing on teratogenic risk perception in pregnant women. Lancet. 2001;358(9289):1237–8.
123.
KalichmanSCColeyB. Context framing to enhance HIV-antibody-testing messages targeted to African American women. Health Psychol. 1995;14(3):247–54.
124.
MarteauTM. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol. 1989;28(pt 1):89–94.
125.
MeyerowitzBEChaikenS. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52(3):500–10.
126.
O’ConnorAMBoydNFTritchlerDLKriukovYSutherlandHTillJE. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments: the influence of framing, medium, and rater variables. Med Decis Making. 1985;5(4):453–63.
127.
OliverA. Testing the internal consistency of the standard gamble in “success” and “failure” frames. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(11):2219–29.
128.
PercyMELlewellyn-ThomasH. Assessing preferences about the DNR order: does it depend on how you ask?Med Decis Making. 1995;15(3):209–16.
129.
QuartinAACalongeROScheinRMHCrandallLA. Influence of critical illness on physicians’ prognoses for underlying disease: a randomized study using simulated cases. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(2):462–70.
130.
RönnlundMKarlssonELaggnäsELarssonLLindströmT. Risky decision making across three arenas of choice: are younger and older adults differently susceptible to framing effects?J Gen Psychol. 2005;132(1):81–92.
131.
StanovichKEWestRF. On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;94(4):672–95.
132.
TruppRJCorwinEJAhijevychKLNygrenT. The impact of educational message framing on adherence to continuous positive airway pressure therapy. Behav Sleep Med. 2011;9(1):38–52.
133.
WegwarthOSchwartzLMWoloshinSGaissmaierWGigerenzerG. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):340–9.
134.
WilliamsTClarkeVBorlandR. Effects of message framing on breast-cancer-related beliefs and behaviors: the role of mediating factors. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2001;31(5):925–50.
135.
ApanovitchAMMcCarthyDSaloveyP. Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychol. 2003;22(1):60–7.
136.
BartelsRDKellyKMRothmanAJ. Moving beyond the function of the health behaviour: the effect of message frame on behavioural decision making. Psychol Health. 2010;25(7):821–38.
137.
BernsteinLMChapmanGBElsteinAS. Framing effects in choices between multioutcome life-expectancy lotteries. Med Decis Making. 1999;19(3):324–38.
138.
BlumenscheinKJohannessonM. An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment. Health Policy. 1998;45(3):187–93.
139.
ChienYCLinCWorthleyJ. Effect of framing on adolescents’ decision making. Percept Mot Skills. 1996;83(3 pt 1):811–9.
140.
ChristensenCHeckerlingPSMackesyMEBernsteinLMElsteinAS. Framing bias among expert and novice physicians. Acad Med. 1991;66(9 suppl):S76–8.
141.
CoxDCoxA. Communicating the consequences of early detection: the role of evidence and framing. J Marketing. 2001;65:91–103.
142.
DonovanRJJallehG. Positive versus negative framing of a hypothetical infant immunization: the influence of involvement. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(1):82–95.
143.
FergusonEGallagherL. Message framing with respect to decisions about vaccination: the roles of frame valence, frame method and perceived risk. Br J Psychol. 2007;98(pt 4):667–80.
144.
GallagherKMUpdegraffJARothmanAJSimsL. Perceived susceptibility to breast cancer moderates the effect of gain- and loss-framed messages on use of screening mammography. Health Psychol. 2011;30(2):145–52.
145.
GerendMAShepherdJE. Using message framing to promote acceptance of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Health Psychol. 2007;26(6):745–52.
146.
GerendMAShepherdJEMondayKA. Behavioral frequency moderates the effects of message framing on HPV vaccine acceptability. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35(2):221–9.
147.
GurmHSLitakerDG. Framing procedural risks to patients: is 99% safe the same as a risk of 1 in 100?Acad Med. 2000;75(8):840–2.
148.
HullSJ. Perceived risk as a moderator of the effectiveness of framed HIV-test promotion messages among women: a randomized controlled trial. Health Psychol. 2012;31(1):114–21.
149.
JacobyABakerGChadwickDJohnsonA. The impact of counseling with a practical statistical model on patients’ decision-making about treatment for epilepsy: findings from a pilot study. Epilepsy Res. 1993;16(3):207–14.
150.
KimSGoldsteinDHasherLZacksRT. Framing effects in younger and older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2005;60(4):P215–8.
151.
MillerSMBuzagloJSSimmsSL. Monitoring styles in women at risk for cervical cancer: implications for the framing of health-relevant messages. Ann Behav Med. 1999;21(1):27–34.
152.
NanXXieBMaddenK. Acceptability of the H1N1 vaccine among older adults: the interplay of message framing and perceived vaccine safety and efficacy. Health Commun. 2012;27(6):559–68.
153.
O’ConnorAM. Effects of framing and level of probability on patients’ preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(2):119–26.
154.
ParkS-Y. The effects of message framing and risk perceptions for HPV vaccine campaigns: focus on the role of regulatory fit. Health Mark Q. 2012;29(4):283–302.
155.
RiversSESaloveyPPizarroDAPizarroJSchneiderTR. Message framing and pap test utilization among women attending a community health clinic. J Health Psychol. 2005;10(1):65–77.
156.
RobertoAJGoodallCEWestPMMahanJD. Persuading physicians to test their patients’ level of kidney functioning: the effects of message frame and point of view. Health Commun. 2010;25(2):107–18.
157.
SchneiderTRSaloveyPApanovitchAM. The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychol. 2001;20(4):256–66.
158.
SmithSMLevinIP. Need for cognition and choice framing effects. J Behav Decis Mak. 1996;9(4):283–90.
159.
Van‘tRietJRuiterRACWerrijMQDe VriesH. Self-efficacy moderates message-framing effects: the case of skin-cancer detection. Psychol Health. 2010;25(3):339–49.
160.
Van ‘t RietJRuiterRDe VriesH. Preaching to the choir? The influence of personal relevance on the effects of gain- and loss-framed health-promoting messages. J Health Psychol. 2011;17(5):712–23.
161.
WoodheadELLynchEBEdelsteinBA. Decisional strategy determines whether frame influences treatment preferences for medical decisions. Psychol Aging. 2011;26(2):285–94.
162.
ZhaoXVillagranMMKrepsGLMcHorneyC. Gain versus loss framing in adherence-promoting communication targeting patients with chronic diseases: the moderating effect of individual time perspective. Health Commun. 2012;27(1):75–85.
163.
ConsedineNSHortonDMagaiCKukafkaR. Breast screening in response to gain, loss, and empowerment framed messages among diverse, low-income women. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18(3):550–66.
164.
FahyADesmondDM. Irish mothers’ intentions to have daughters receive the HPV vaccine. Ir J Med Sci. 2010;179(3):427–30.
165.
HanK-HJoS. Does culture matter? A cross-national investigation of women’s responses to cancer prevention campaigns. Health Care Women Int. 2012;33(1):75–94.
166.
LauverDRubinM. Message framing, dispositional optimism, and follow-up for abnormal Papanicolaou tests. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13(3):199–207.
167.
Llewellyn-ThomasHAMcGrealMJThielEC. Cancer patients’ decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of “framing” information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):4–12.
168.
McCaulKDJohnsonRJRothmanAJ. The effects of framing and action instructions on whether older adults obtain flu shots. Health Psychol. 2002;21(6):624–8.
169.
O’ConnorAMPennieRADalesRE. Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects experienced: the case of influenza immunization. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(11):1271–6.
170.
ParkPSimmonsRKPrevostATGriffinSJ. A randomized evaluation of loss and gain frames in an invitation to screening for type 2 diabetes: effects on attendance, anxiety and self-rated health. J Health Psychol. 2010;15(2):196–204.
171.
RomanekKMMcCaulKDSandgrenAK. Age differences in treatment decision making for breast cancer in a sample of healthy women: the effects of body image and risk framing. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005;32(4):799–806.
172.
SearsSRWoodwardJTTwillmanRK. What do I have to lose? Effects of a psycho-educational intervention on cancer patient preference for resuscitation. J Behav Med. 2007;30(6):533–44.
173.
SiminoffLAFettingJH. Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Med Decis Making. 1989;9(4):262–71.
174.
Van den AkkerOBAPurewalS. Elective single-embryo transfer: persuasive communication strategies can affect choice in a young British population. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(7):838–50.
175.
WelkenhuysenMEvers-KieboomsGd’YdewalleG. The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient Educ Couns. 2001;43(2):179–87.
176.
WittingMBoere-BoonekampMMFleurenMAHSakkersRJBIjzermanMJ. Predicting participation in ultrasound hip screening from message framing. Health Commun. 2012;27(2):186–93.
177.
ZimmermannCBaldoCMolinoA. Framing of outcome and probability of recurrence: breast cancer patients’ choice of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in hypothetical patient scenarios. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;60(1):9–14.
178.
SprancaMMinskEBaronJ. Omission and commission in judgment and choice. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1991;27(1):76–105.
179.
AbereggSKHaponikEFTerryPB. Omission bias and decision making in pulmonary and critical care medicine. Chest. 2005;128(3):1497–505.
180.
AschDABaronJHersheyJC. Omission bias and pertussis vaccination. Med Decis Making. 1994;14(2):118–23.
181.
BrownKFKrollJSHudsonMJ. Omission bias and vaccine rejection by parents of healthy children: implications for the influenza A/H1N1 vaccination programme. Vaccine. 2010;28(25):4181–5.
182.
CohenBJPaukerSG. How do physicians weigh iatrogenic complications?J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9(1):20–3.
183.
DiBonaventuraMChapmanGB. Do decision biases predict bad decisions? Omission bias, naturalness bias, and influenza vaccination. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(4):532–9.
184.
MeszarosJRAschDABaronJHersheyJCKunreutherHSchwartz-BuzagloJ. Cognitive processes and the decisions of some parents to forego pertussis vaccination for their children. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(6):697–703.
185.
RitovIBaronJ. Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J Behav Decis Mak. 1990;3(4):263–77.
186.
RitovIBaronJ. Outcome knowledge, regret, and omission bias. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1995;64(2):119–27.
187.
WroeALBhanASalkovskisPBedfordH. Feeling bad about immunising our children. Vaccine. 2005;23(12):1428–33.
188.
WroeALTurnerNSalkovskisPM. Understanding and predicting parental decisions about early childhood immunizations. Health Psychol. 2004;23(1):33–41.
189.
BaronJ. The effect of normative beliefs on anticipated emotions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63(2):320–30.
190.
Zikmund-FisherBJSarrBFagerlinAUbelPA. A matter of perspective: choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(6):618–22.
191.
BondLNolanT. Making sense of perceptions of risk of diseases and vaccinations: a qualitative study combining models of health beliefs, decision-making and risk perception. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):943.
192.
ConnollyTRebJ. Omission bias in vaccination decisions: where’s the “omission”? Where’s the “bias”?Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2003;91(2):186–202.
193.
KahnemanDTverskyA. Conflict resolution: a cognitive perspective. In: KahnemanDTverskyA, eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University Press; 2000. p 473–88.
194.
BerndsenMvan der PligtJ. Time is on my side: optimism in intertemporal choice. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2001;108(2):173–86.
195.
ChristakisNALamontEB. Extent and determinants of error in doctors’ prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2000;320(7233):469–72.
196.
DillardAJUbelPASmithDM. The distinct role of comparative risk perceptions in a breast cancer prevention program. Ann Behav Med. 2011;42(2):262–8.
197.
GrazBWietlisbachVPorchetFVaderJ-P. Prognosis or “curabo effect?” Physician prediction and patient outcome of surgery for low back pain and sciatica. Spine. 2005;30(12):1448–53.
198.
LeeSJFaircloughDAntinJHWeeksJC. Discrepancies between patient and physician estimates for the success of stem cell transplantation. JAMA. 2001;285(8):1034–8.
199.
PosesRMcClishDBekesCScottEMorleyJ. Ego bias, reverse ego bias, and physicians’ prognostic. Crit Care Med. 1991;19(12):1533–9.
200.
LoewensteinGPrelecD. Preferences for sequences of outcomes. In: KahnemanDTverskyA, eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Cambridge University Press; 2000. p 565–96.
201.
BarrettJJScheererCREstesJP. Order of information: impact on perceived level of functional independence. Occup Ther Health Care. 2005;18(4):1–12.
202.
BergusGRChapmanGBGjerdeCElsteinAS. Clinical reasoning about new symptoms despite preexisting disease: sources of error and order effects. Fam Med. 1995;27(5):314–20.
203.
BergusGRChapmanGBLevyBTElyJWOppligerRA. Clinical diagnosis and the order of information. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(4):412–7.
204.
ChapmanGBBergusGRElsteinAS. Order of information affects clinical judgment. J Behav Decis Mak. 1996;9(3):201–11.
205.
CurleySPYoungMJKingryMJYatesJF. Primacy effects in clinical judgments of contingency. Med Decis Making. 1988;8(3):216–22.
206.
MazurDJMerzJF. How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41(3):223–8.
207.
MorrisonVHendersonBJTaylorCA’Ch DafyddNUnwinA. The impact of information order on intentions to undergo predictive genetic testing: an experimental study. J Health Psychol. 2010;15(7):1082–92.
208.
BergusGRLevinIPElsteinAS. Presenting risks and benefits to patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(8):612–7.
209.
EinhornHJ. Learning from experience and suboptimal rules in decision making. In: KahnemanDSlovicPTverskyA, eds. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982. p 268–86.
210.
HemmerichJAElsteinASSchwarzeMLMoliskiEGDaleW. Risk as feelings in the effect of patient outcomes on physicians’ future treatment decisions: a randomized trial and manipulation validation. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(2):367–76.
211.
MazzoccoKCherubiniP. The effect of outcome information on health professionals’ spontaneous learning. Med Educ. 2010;44(10):962–8.
212.
ThomasECroftPRPatersonSMDziedzicKHayEM. What influences participants’ treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(499):93–6.
213.
ForrowLTaylorWCArnoldRM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92(2):121–4.
214.
BhandariMTornettaP. Communicating the risks of surgery to patients. Eur J Trauma. 2004;30(3).
215.
BobbioMDemichelisBGiustettoG. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians’ willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994;343(8907):1209–11.
216.
BucherHCWeinbacherMGyrK. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ. 1994;309(6957):761–4.
217.
CarlingCKristoffersenDTHerrinJ. How should the impact of different presentations of treatment effects on patient choice be evaluated? A pilot randomized trial. PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3693.
218.
CarlingCLLKristoffersenDTMontoriVM. The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000134.
219.
ChaoCStudtsJLAbellT. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(23):4299–305.
220.
CranneyMWalleyT. Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46(412):661–3.
221.
DaveyCWhiteVGattellariMWardJE. Reconciling population benefits and women’s individual autonomy in mammographic screening: in-depth interviews to explore women’s views about “informed choice.” Aust N Z J Public Health. 2005;29(1):69–77.
222.
FagerlinAZikmund-FisherBJUbelPA. “If I’m better than average, then I’m ok?” Comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69(1–3):140–4.
223.
Gyrd-HansenDKristiansenISNexøeJNielsenJB. Effects of baseline risk information on social and individual choices. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(1):71–5.
224.
HuxJENaylorCD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients’ acceptance of treatment?Med Decis Making. 1995;15(2):152–7.
225.
LacyCRBaroneJASuhDC. Impact of presentation of research results on likelihood of prescribing medications to patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2001;87(2):203–7.
226.
LipkusIMKleinWMP. Effects of communicating social comparison information on risk perceptions for colorectal cancer. J Health Commun. 2006;11(4):391–407.
227.
MalenkaDJBaronJAJohansenSWahrenbergerJWRossJM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8(10):543–8.
228.
MisselbrookDArmstrongD. Patients’ responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(465):276–9.
229.
NaylorCDChenEStraussB. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(11):916–21.
230.
NexøeJGyrd-HansenDKragstrupJKristiansenISNielsenJB. Danish GPs’ perception of disease risk and benefit of prevention. Fam Pract. 2002;19(1):3–6.
231.
NexøeJOltarzewskaAMSawicka-PowierzaJKragstrupJKristiansenIS. Perception of risk information: similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2002;20(3):183–7.
232.
Nikolajevic-SarunacJHenryDAO’ConnellDLRobertsonJ. Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(10):591–8.
233.
PernegerTVAgoritsasT. Doctors and patients’ susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(12):1411–7.
234.
RoshanFSaeedMAgewallS. Patients’ self-estimated likelihood of taking a statin as prescribed after different types of prognostic information. Atherosclerosis. 2010;212(2):586–8.
235.
SarfatiDHowden-ChapmanPWoodwardASalmondC. Does the frame affect the picture? A study into how attitudes to screening for cancer are affected by the way benefits are expressed. J Med Screen. 1998;5(3):137–40.
236.
SilverBZamanIFAshrafK. A randomized trial of decision-making in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Neurology. 2012;78(5):315–21.
237.
SinskyCAForeman-HoffmanVCramP. The impact of expressions of treatment efficacy and out-of-pocket expenses on patient and physician interest in osteoporosis treatment: implications for pay-for-performance programs. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(2):164–8.
238.
StrausSE. Individualizing treatment decisions: the likelihood of being helped or harmed. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(2):210–24.
239.
BerryDCKnappPRaynorT. Expressing medicine side effects: assessing the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm, and the provision of baseline risk information. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1–2):89–96.
240.
HudsonBToopLManginDPearsonJ. Risk communication methods in hip fracture prevention: a randomised trial in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61(589):e469–76.
241.
WolfAMSchorlingJB. Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(1):24–30.
242.
BrannonLACarsonKL. The representativeness heuristic: influence on nurses’ decision making. Appl Nurs Res. 2003;16(3):201–4.
243.
BriegerDEagleKAGoodmanSG. Acute coronary syndromes without chest pain, an underdiagnosed and undertreated high-risk group: insights from the global registry of acute coronary events. Chest. 2004;126(2):461–9.
244.
CioffiJMarkhamR. Clinical decision-making by midwives: managing case complexity. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25(2):265–72.
245.
FerrarioCG. Experienced and less-experienced nurses’ diagnostic reasoning: implications for fostering students’ critical thinking. Int J Nurs Terminol Classif. 2003;14(2):41–52.
246.
GarbHN. The representativeness and past-behavior heuristics in clinical judgment. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 1996;27(3):272–7.
247.
ArkesHBlumerC. The psychology of sunk cost. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1985;35(1):124–40.
248.
ColemanMD. Sunk cost and commitment to medical treatment. Curr Psychol. 2010;29(2):121–34.
249.
BornsteinBHEmlerACChapmanGB. Rationality in medical treatment decisions: is there a sunk-cost effect?Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(2):215–22.
250.
BravermanJABlumenthal-BarbyJS. Assessment of the sunk-cost effect in clinical decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(1):186–92.
251.
StanekEJChengJWMPeeplesPJSimkoRJSpinlerSA. Patient preferences for thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(4):464–71.
252.
ChaoL-WPaganJASoldoBJ. End-of-life medical treatment choices: do survival chances and out-of-pocket costs matter?Med Decis Making. 2008;28(4):511–23.
253.
GriffithJMLewisCLBrennerARTPignoneMP. The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:4.
254.
BrodyH. Medicine’s ethical responsibility for health care reform: the top five list. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(4):283–5.
ByrneMMWeissfeldJRobertsMS. Anxiety, fear of cancer, and perceived risk of cancer following lung cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):917–25.
257.
DillardAJMcCaulKDKelsoPDKleinWMP. Resisting good news: reactions to breast cancer risk communication. Health Commun. 2006;19(2):115–23.
258.
WatsonMLloydSDavidsonJ. The impact of genetic counseling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1999;79(5–6):868–74.
259.
WeinsteinNDKwitelAMcCaulKDMagnanREGerrardMGibbonsFX. Risk perceptions: assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26(2):146–51.
260.
HellerRFSaltzsteinHDCaspeWB. Heuristics in medical and non-medical decision-making. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1992;44(2):211–35.
261.
SmithDMLoewensteinGRozinPSherriffRLUbelPA. Sensitivity to disgust, stigma, and adjustment to life with a colostomy. J Res Pers. 2007;41(4):787–803.
262.
GigerenzerG. Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. New York: Viking; 2007.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
