Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32725580›Full record

ArticleJournal of behavioral medicine2021

Gain-loss framing and patients' decisions: a linguistic examination of information framing in physician-patient conversations.

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

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Effects of Message Frames and Sources in TikTok Videos for Youth Vaping Cessation: Emotions and Perceived Message Effectiveness as Mediating Mechanisms.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ilona FridmanFuqua School of Business, Duke University, 100 Fuqua Drive, Durham, NC, 27708, USA. ilona.fridman@duke.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6130-3134
Angela FagerlinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Karen A ScherrFamily Medicine and Community Health, Duke School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1972-6472
Laura D SchererAdult and Child Consortium of Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science (ACCORDS), Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Hanna HuffstetlerFuqua School of Business, Duke University, 100 Fuqua Drive, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Peter A UbelFuqua School of Business, Duke University, 100 Fuqua Drive, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Duke University · USOutcomes Research Consortium · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

PhysiciansProstatic NeoplasmsCommunicationDecision MakingHumansLinguisticsMalePhysician-Patient RelationsActive surveillanceCancerDecision makingFramingGainsHealth communicationLIWCLossesProspect theoryProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID32725580
OpenAlexW3046163760

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.