Previously submitted to: Interactive Journal of Medical Research (no longer under consideration since Jun 22, 2020)
Date Submitted: Jul 25, 2019
Open Peer Review Period: Jul 29, 2019 - Sep 24, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer-review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer-Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
The impact of a physician’s recommendation and gender on informed decision making: A randomized controlled study
When making decisions regarding their own health, patients are affected by a variety of influencing factors. The attending physician plays a particularly important role in this context. This also applies in situations that are preference-sensitive and in which therefore the needs and wishes of the patient should be particularly acknowledged. The influence of physicians can emanate both from their statements and from their physical presence.
This study examined the influence of physicians’ recommendations and their gender on the decision-making process in a preference-sensitive situation. The participants were asked to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which they themselves suffered from a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).
The participants (n=202) received general information on the ACL and on treatment options for an ACL rupture (surgical treatment vs. physiotherapeutic treatment). They were explicitly informed that both treatment options showed the same treatment success in the medical research literature, and that this was therefore a preference-sensitive decision situation. Subsequently, the participants indicated their decision for a treatment option, their certainty and satisfaction regarding their decision, and their attitude toward the two treatment options. The participants were then randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (physician’s recommendation: surgery vs. physiotherapy) x 2 (physician’s gender: female vs. male) design. They watched a video with a still picture of a drawn female or male doctor and with the audio track of a medical consultation with a female or male voice. They received further information about the treatment options and the female or male doctor’s recommendation for one option. The participants then indicated again their decision, certainty, satisfaction, and attitude. They also assessed the physician’s professional and social competence.
We found that the participants changed their decision in the direction of the physician’s recommendation (P<.001). The data also showed that certainty (P<.001) and satisfaction (P<.001) regarding the decision increased more strongly if the physician’s recommendation was in line with the participant’s prior attitude than if the recommendation was contrary to the participant’s prior attitude. Finally, we found that participants’ attitude toward the recommended treatment became more positive (surgery recommendation: P<.001; physiotherapy recommendation: P<.001). However, we found no influence of the physician’s gender on participants’ decision, attitude, or competence assessment.
This research indicates that physicians should be careful with recommendations when aiming for shared decisions, as they might influence patients even if the patients have been made aware that they should take their personal preferences into account. This could be particularly problematic if the doctor’s recommendation is not in line with the patient’s preferences, as this contradiction may lead to less certainty and satisfaction regarding the decision. Clinical Trial: The study was pre-registered on the pre-registration platform AsPredicted (aspredicted.org) before we began data collection (registration number: #12946).
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.