A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Presenting Treatment Benefits in Different Formats

Judith Covey
Additional contact information
Judith Covey: Department of Psychology, Durham University, Stockton, United Kingdom

Medical Decision Making, 2007, vol. 27, issue 5, 638-654

Abstract: Purpose. The purpose of this article is to examine the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats on the decisions of both patients and health professionals. Three formats were investigated: relative risk reductions, absolute risk reductions, and number needed to treat or screen. Methods. A systematic review of the published literature was conducted. Articles were retrieved by searching a variety of databases and screened for inclusion by 2 reviewers. Data were extracted on characteristics of the subjects and methodologies used. Log-odds ratios were calculated to estimate effect sizes. Results. A total of 24 articles were retrieved that reported on 31 unique experiments. The meta-analysis showed that treatments were evaluated more favorably when the relative risk format was used rather than the absolute risk or number needed to treat format. However, a significant amount of heterogeneity was found between studies, the sources of which were explored using subgroup analyses and metaregression. Although the subgroup analyses revealed smaller effect sizes in the studies conducted on physicians, the metaregression showed that these differences were largely accounted for by other features of the study design. Most notably, variations in effect sizes were explained by the particular wordings that the studies had chosen to use for the relative risk and absolute risk reductions. Conclusions. The published literature has consistently demonstrated that relative risk formats produce more favorable evaluations of treatments than absolute risk or number needed to treat formats. However, the effects are heterogeneous and seem to be moderated by key differences between the methodologies used.

Keywords: Key words: framing effects; informed choice; systematic review; meta-analysis. (Med Decis Making 2007; 27:638—654) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07306783 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:638-654

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07306783

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().