Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the way in which information on benefits and harms of long-term hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is presented influences family physicians’ intentions to prescribe this treatment.
DESIGN: Family physicians were randomized to receive information on treatment outcomes expressed in relative terms, or as the number needing to be treated (NNT) with HRT to prevent or cause an event. A control group received no information.
SETTING: Primary care.
PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians practicing in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia.
INTERVENTION: Estimates of the impact of long-term HRT on risk of coronary events, hip fractures, and breast cancer were summarized as relative (proportional) decreases or increases in risk, or as NNT.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intention to prescribe HRT for seven hypothetical patients was measured on Likert scales. Of 389 family physicians working in the Hunter Valley, 243 completed the baseline survey and 215 participated in the randomized trial. Baseline intention to prescribe varied across patients—it was highest in the presence of risk factors for hip fracture, but coexisting risk factors for breast cancer had a strong negative influence. Overall, a larger proportion of subjects receiving information expressed as NNT had reduced intentions, and a smaller proportion had increased intentions to prescribe HRT than those receiving the information expressed in relative terms, or the control group. However, the differences were small and only reached statistical significance for three hypothetical patients. Framing effects were minimal when the hypothetical patient had coexisting risk factors for breast cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Information framing had some effect on family physicians’ intentions to prescribe HRT, but the effects were smaller than those previously reported, and they were modified by the presence of serious potential adverse treatment effects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1301–7.
Schmid CH, Lau J, McIntosh MW, Cappelleri JC. An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:1923–42.
Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1728–33.
Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310:452–4.
Brett AS. Treating hypercholesterolemia. How should practicing physicians interpret the published data for patients? N Engl J Med. 1989;321:676–84.
Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121–4.
Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916–21.
Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberg JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:543–8.
Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ. 1994;309:761–4.
Bobbio M, Demichellis B, Giustetto G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians’ willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994;343:1209–11.
Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients’ acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making. 1995;15:152–7.
Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ. Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ. 1995;311:1056–61.
Henry D, Robertson J, Gillespie W, et al. Report to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Meta-analysis of Interventions for Prevention and Treatment of Post-menopausal Osteoporosis and Fracture. Newcastle, N.S.W.: The University of Newcastle; 1995.
Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Estrogen replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: a quantitative assessment of the epidemiologic evidence. Prev Med. 1991;20:47–63.
Steinberg KK, Thacker SB, Smith SJ, et al. A meta-analysis of the effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 1991;265:1985–90.
Sillero-Arenas M, Delgado-Rodriguez M, Rodigues-Canteras R, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Galvez-Vaugas R. Menopausal hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:286–94.
Dupont WD, Page DL. Menopausal estrogen therapy and breast cancer. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:67–72.
Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 1981.
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:1047–59.
Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, et al. Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. JAMA. 1998;280:605–13.
McGettigan P, Sly K, O’Connell D, et al. The Effects of Information Framing on the Practices of Physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:633–42.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nikolajevic-Sarunac, J., Henry, D.A., O’Connell, D.L. et al. Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy. J GEN INTERN MED 14, 591–598 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09028.x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.09028.x