Skip to main content
Journal cover image

"Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Zikmund-Fisher, BJ; Fagerlin, A; Ubel, PA
Published in: Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
March 2004

Choices of health care providers can become inconsistent when people lack sufficient context to assess the value of available information. In a series of surveys, general population samples were randomized to read descriptions of either 2 possible health care providers or a single provider. Some information about providers was easy to consider (e.g., travel time), but some was difficult to interpret without additional context (e.g., success rates). Ratings of the described health care providers varied significantly by whether options were evaluated independently or concurrently. For example, one fertility clinic (33% success rate, 15 min away) was rated higher than a 2nd (40% success rate, 45 min away) when each clinic was considered separately (7.1 v. 6.2, P = 0.046), but preferences reversed in joint evaluation (5.9 v. 6.7, P = 0.051). The results suggest that clinicians and developers of patient information materials alike should consider information evaluability when deciding how to present health care options to patients.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making

DOI

EISSN

1552-681X

ISSN

0272-989X

Publication Date

March 2004

Volume

24

Issue

2

Start / End Page

142 / 148

Related Subject Headings

  • United States
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Random Allocation
  • Patient Satisfaction
  • Patient Acceptance of Health Care
  • Humans
  • Health Policy & Services
  • Decision Making
  • Access to Information
  • 4206 Public health
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Fagerlin, A., & Ubel, P. A. (2004). "Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Medical Decision Making : An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 24(2), 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x04263154
Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J., Angela Fagerlin, and Peter A. Ubel. “"Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions.Medical Decision Making : An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 24, no. 2 (March 2004): 142–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x04263154.
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. "Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 2004 Mar;24(2):142–8.
Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J., et al. “"Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions.Medical Decision Making : An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, vol. 24, no. 2, Mar. 2004, pp. 142–48. Epmc, doi:10.1177/0272989x04263154.
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. "Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 2004 Mar;24(2):142–148.
Journal cover image

Published In

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making

DOI

EISSN

1552-681X

ISSN

0272-989X

Publication Date

March 2004

Volume

24

Issue

2

Start / End Page

142 / 148

Related Subject Headings

  • United States
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Random Allocation
  • Patient Satisfaction
  • Patient Acceptance of Health Care
  • Humans
  • Health Policy & Services
  • Decision Making
  • Access to Information
  • 4206 Public health