Top

Published in:

01-02-2021 | Prostate Cancer

Gain–loss framing and patients’ decisions: a linguistic examination of information framing in physician–patient conversations

Authors: Ilona Fridman, Angela Fagerlin, Karen A. Scherr, Laura D. Scherer, Hanna Huffstetler, Peter A. Ubel

Published in: Journal of Behavioral Medicine | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

When discussing risks and benefits with cancer patients, physicians could focus on losses such as mortality rates and cancer recurrence or, alternatively, gains such as survival rates and curing cancer. Previous research has shown that the way health information is framed influences individuals’ preferences and choices. We operationalized gain–loss framing as physicians’ choice of words related to gains (cancer survival), or losses (cancer mortality). In an exploratory analysis, we investigated (a) whether physicians used gain or loss words as a function of their recommendation, (b) whether physicians’ choice of words was associated with patients’ treatment choices. We analyzed transcribed consultations with male patients who had intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Using an iterative process of gathering and evaluating words, we created gain- and loss-dictionaries. The loss-dictionary included words related to cancer death and cancer progression. The gain-dictionary included words related to survival and cure. Using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software, we calculated the number of words related to gains and losses in each transcript. We found that physicians who recommended immediate cancer treatment for prostate cancer (vs. active surveillance) used slightly fewer words related to losses and significantly fewer words related specifically to death from cancer. Further analysis showed that loss words were associated with the patient’s choice of immediate cancer treatment. A novel method of automated text analysis showed that physicians’ use of loss words was correlated with physicians’ recommendations for cancer treatment versus active surveillance. Additionally, loss words in consultations were associated with patients’ choice of cancer treatment.

Available only for authorised users

Akl, E. A., Oxman, A. D., Herrin, J., Vist, G. E., Terrenato, I., Sperati, F., et al. (2011). Framing of health information messages. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006777.pub2CrossRef

Albertsen, P. C., Hanley, J. A., Gleason, D. F., & Barry, M. J. (1998). Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA, 280, 975–980.PubMed

Boyd, R. L. (2018). Contextualizer (Version 1.06) [Software]. https://context.ryanb.cc.

Chapman, A. R., Litton, E., Chamberlain, J., & Ho, K. M. (2015). The effect of prognostic data presentation format on perceived risk among surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients: A randomized comparative trial. Journal of Critical Care, 30, 231–235.PubMed

Deutsch, R., Kordts-Freudinger, R., Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (2009). Fast and fragile: A new look at the automaticity of negation processing. Experimental Psychology, 56, 434–446.PubMed

Donovan, J. L., Hamdy, F. C., Lane, J. A., Mason, M., Metcalfe, C., Walsh, E., et al. (2016). Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 375, 1425–1437.

Fridman, I., Ubel, P. A., Blumenthal-Barby, J., England, C. V., Currier, J. S., Eyal, N., et al. (2020). “Cure” versus “clinical remission”: the impact of a medication description on the willingness of people living with HIV to take a medication. AIDS and Behavior, 24, 2054–2061.PubMed

Gamache, D. L., McNamara, G., Mannor, M. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1261–1282.

Hamdy, F. C., Donovan, J. L., Lane, J. A., Mason, M., Metcalfe, C., Holding, P., et al. (2016). 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 375, 1415–1424.

Harrington, N. G., & Kerr, A. M. (2017). Rethinking risk: Prospect theory application in health message framing research. Health Communication, 32, 131–141.PubMed

Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.

Heidenreich, A., Aus, G., Bolla, M., Joniau, S., Matveev, V. B., Schmid, H. P., et al. (2009). EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Actas Urologicas Espanolas, 33, 113–126.PubMed

Hilton, D. J. (2011). Linguistic polarity, outcome framing, and the structure of decision making: A pragmatic approach. In G. Keren (Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 135–156). New York: Psychology Press.

Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55.

Holmes-Rovner, M., Kelly-Blake, K., Dwamena, F., Dontje, K., Henry, R. C., Olomu, A., et al. (2011). Shared decision making guidance reminders in practice (SDM-GRIP). Patient Education and Counseling, 85, 219–224.PubMed

Humphreys, A., & Wang, R. J.-H. (2017). Automated text analysis for consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44, 1274–1306.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.

Kanze, D., Huang, L., Conley, M. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2017). Male and female entrepreneurs get asked different questions by VCs—And it affects how much funding they get. Harvard Business Review, June, 27.

Kühberger, A., & Tanner, C. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory. Journal of behavioral decision making, 23, 314–329.

Lavine, H., Thomsen, C. J., Zanna, M. P., & Borgida, E. (1998). On the primacy of affect in the determination of attitudes and behavior: The moderating role of affective-cognitive ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 398–421.

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.PubMed

Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Predicting the intensity of losses vs. non-gains and non-losses vs. gains in judging fairness and value: A test of the loss aversion explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 527–534.

McKenzie, C. R. (2004). Framing effects in inference tasks—And why they are normatively defensible. Memory & Cognition, 32, 874–885.

McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., Jr., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259–1262.

Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500.PubMed

Nan, X., Daily, K., & Qin, Y. (2018). Relative persuasiveness of gain-vs. loss-framed messages: A review of theoretical perspectives and developing an integrative framework. Review of Communication, 18, 370–390.

O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 30, 1–43.

O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of health communication, 12, 623–644.PubMed

O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59, 296–316.

Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychological Science, 8, 162–166.

Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: liwc.net.

Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

Perneger, T. V., & Agoritsas, T. (2011). Doctors and patients’ susceptibility to framing bias: A randomized trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26, 1411–1417.PubMedPubMedCentral

Roth, A. J., Rosenfeld, B., Kornblith, A. B., Gibson, C., Scher, H. I., Curley-Smart, T., et al. (2003). The memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer. Cancer, 97, 2910–2918. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11386CrossRefPubMed

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3.PubMed

Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 408.

Scherr, K. A., Delaney, R. K., Ubel, P. A., Kahn, V., & Fagerlin A. (Unpublished). Preparing patients with early stage prostate cancer to participate in clinical appointment using a shared decision-making training video.

Scherr, K. A., Fagerlin, A., Hofer, T., Scherer, L. D., Holmes-Rovner, M., Williamson, L. D., et al. (2017a). Physician recommendations trump patient preferences in prostate cancer treatment decisions. Medical Decision Making, 37, 56–69.PubMed

Scherr, K. A., Fagerlin, A., Williamson, L. D., Davis, J. K., Fridman, I., Atyeo, N., et al. (2017b). The physician recommendation coding system (PhyReCS) a reliable and valid method to quantify the strength of physician recommendations during clinical encounters. Medical Decision Making, 37, 46–55.PubMed

Siminoff, L. A., & Fetting, J. H. (1989). Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: Impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Medical Decision Making, 9, 262–271.PubMed

Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54.

Thompson, I., Thrasher, J. B., Aus, G., Burnett, A. L., Canby-Hagino, E. D., Cookson, M. S., et al. (2007). Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. The Journal of Urology, 177, 2106–2131.PubMed

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.PubMed

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.

Ubel, P. A. (2015). Medical facts versus value judgments—Toward preference-sensitive guidelines. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 2475–2477.

van den Bergh, R. C., Korfage, I. J., & Bangma, C. H. (2012). Psychological aspects of active surveillance. Current Opinion in Urology, 22, 237–242.PubMed

van den Bergh, R. C., Roemeling, S., Roobol, M. J., Aus, G., Hugosson, J., Rannikko, A. S., et al. (2009). Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. European Urology, 55, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.007CrossRefPubMed

Van’t Riet, J., Cox, A. D., Cox, D., Zimet, G. D., De Bruijn, G.-J., Van den Putte, B., et al. (2016). Does perceived risk influence the effects of message framing? Revisiting the link between prospect theory and message framing. Health Psychology Review, 10, 447–459.

Veldwijk, J., Essers, B. A., Lambooij, M. S., Dirksen, C. D., Smit, H. A., & de Wit, G. A. (2016). Survival or mortality: Does risk attribute framing influence decision-making behavior in a discrete choice experiment? Value in Health, 19, 202–209.PubMed

Wilt, T. J., Brawer, M. K., Jones, K. M., Barry, M. J., Aronson, W. J., Fox, S., et al. (2012). Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 367, 203–213.

Wilt, T. J., Jones, K. M., Barry, M. J., Andriole, G. L., Culkin, D., Wheeler, T., et al. (2017). Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 377, 132–142.

Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Mayman, G., Fagerlin, A., Anderson, B., & Schulkin, J. (2014). Patient numeracy: What do patients need to recognize, think, or do with health numbers. In B. L. Anderson (Ed.), Numerical reasoning in judgments and decision making about health (pp. 80–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Title: Gain–loss framing and patients’ decisions: a linguistic examination of information framing in physician–patient conversations
Authors: Ilona Fridman
Angela Fagerlin
Karen A. Scherr
Laura D. Scherer
Hanna Huffstetler
Peter A. Ubel
Publication date: 01-02-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Published in: Journal of Behavioral Medicine / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0160-7715
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3521
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-020-00171-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Gain–loss framing and patients’ decisions: a linguistic examination of information framing in physician–patient conversations

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

A prospective study of cancer-related benefit finding in uveal melanoma patients

Social Constraints and PTSD among Chinese American breast cancer survivors: not all kinds of social support provide relief

A daily study of stressors, continuously measured glucose, and diabetes symptoms in latinos with type 2 diabetes

Pain resilience, pain catastrophizing, and executive functioning: performance on a short-term memory task during simultaneous ischemic pain

(No) escape from reality? Cigarette craving in virtual smoking environments

Transitions in coping profiles after breast cancer diagnosis: implications for depressive and physical symptoms