Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/19856
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity: Does the Frame Influence Decisions?
Other Titles: Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity
Authors: Abhyankar, Purva
Summers, Barbara A
Velikova, Galina
Bekker, Hilary L
Contact Email: purva.abhyankar@stir.ac.uk
Keywords: framing
informed decision making
patient choice
trial participation
opt-in/opt-out
decision aid
Issue Date: Jul-2014
Publisher: SAGE
Citation: Abhyankar P, Summers BA, Velikova G & Bekker HL (2014) Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity: Does the Frame Influence Decisions?, Medical Decision Making, 34 (5), pp. 567-582.
Abstract: Objective. Health professionals must enable patients to make informed decisions about health care choices through unbiased presentation of all options. This study examined whether presenting the decision as "opportunity" rather than "choice" biased individuals' preferences in the context of trial participation for cancer treatment. Methods. Self-selecting healthy women (N = 124) were randomly assigned to the following decision frames: opportunity to take part in the trial (opt-in), opportunity to be removed from the trial (opt-out), and choice to have standard treatment or take part in the trial (choice). The computer-based task required women to make a hypothetical choice about a real-world cancer treatment trial. The software presented the framed scenario, recorded initial preference, presented comprehensive and balanced information, traced participants' use of information during decision making, and recorded final decision. A posttask paper questionnaire assessed perceived risk, attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and satisfaction with decision. Results. Framing influenced women's immediate preferences. Opportunity frames, whether opt-in or opt-out, introduced a bias as they discouraged women from choosing standard treatment. Using the choice frame avoided this bias. The opt-out opportunity frame also affected women's perceived social norm; women felt that others endorsed the trial option. The framing bias was not present once participants had had the opportunity to view detailed information on the options within a patient decision aid format. There were no group differences in information acquisition and final decisions. Sixteen percent changed their initial preference after receiving full information. Conclusions. A "choice" frame, where all treatment options are explicit, is less likely to bias preferences. Presentation of full information in parallel, option-by-attribute format is likely to "de-bias" the decision frame. Tailoring of information to initial preferences would be ill-advised as preferences may change following detailed information.
Type: Journal Article
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/19856
DOI Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14529624
Rights: Publisher policy allows this work to be made available in this repository. Published in Medical Decision Making by SAGE. The original publication is available at: http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/14/0272989X14529624.abstract
Affiliation: NMAHP Research
University of Leeds
St James University Hospital
University of Leeds

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Abhyankar et al_Framing_Accepted version.pdf1.1 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.