Article Text

PDF
How are non-numerical prognostic statements interpreted and are they subject to positive bias?
  1. Anne Moyer,
  2. Samantha Siess and
  3. Sumeet Bhinder
  1. Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Anne Moyer, Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11974-2500, USA; anne.moyer{at}stonybrook.edu

Abstract

Objectives Frank, clear communication with family members of terminally ill or incapacitated patients has important implications for well-being, satisfaction with care and sound decision-making. However, numerical prognostic statements, particularly more negative ones, have been found to be interpreted in a positively biased manner. Less precise non-numerical statements, preferred by physicians, and particularly statements using threatening terms (dying vs surviving) may be even more subject to such biases.

Methods Participants (N=200) read non-numerical prognostic statements framed in terms of dying or surviving and indicated their interpretation of likelihood of survival.

Results Even the most extreme statements were not interpreted to indicate 100% likelihood of surviving or dying, (eg, they will definitely survive, 92.77%). The poorness of prognoses was associated with more optimistically biased interpretations but this was not, however, affected by the wording of the prognoses in terms of dying versus surviving.

Conclusions The findings illuminate the ways in which commonly used non-numeric language may be understood in numeric terms during prognostic discussions and provide further evidence of recipients' propensity for positive bias.

  • Prognosis
  • Communication
  • Received 10 February 2017.
  • Accepted 4 April 2017.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

  • Received 10 February 2017.
  • Accepted 4 April 2017.
View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The results section has been amended.

  • Contributors AM was involved in study design, data analysis and manuscript writing. SS was involved in study design, data collection and manuscript review. SB was involved in data collection, data analysis and manuscript review.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Study approval was obtained from the Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at Stony Brook University.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement The data from this study are available only to the research team of the principal investigator, AM.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.