Background: Understanding how medical experts and their patients process and transfer information is of critical importance for efficient health care provision. Behavioral economics has explored similar credence markets where economic incentives, information asymmetry, and cognitive bias can impact patient and surgeon choice. The aim of the current study is to explore how framing and behavioral bias affect elective restorative surgery decision-making, such as breast reconstruction following cancer treatment. Methods: The authors’ study uses a cross-sectional survey data set of specialist surgeons (n = 53), breast care nurses (n = 101), and former or current breast cancer patients (n = 689). Data collected include participant demographics, medical history, a battery of cognitive bias tests, and a behavioral framing experiment. Results: This study finds statistically significant differences in breast reconstruction surgery preference by patients and nurses when decision options are framed in different ways (i.e., positively versus negatively). The authors’ analysis of surgeons, nurses, and patients shows no statistically significant difference across eight common forms of cognitive bias. Rather, the authors find that the behavioral biases are prevalent to the same extent in each group. This may indicate that differences in experience and education seem not to mitigate biases that may affect patient choices and medical professional’s recommendations. The authors’ multivariate analysis identifies patient age (p < 0.0001), body mass index, and self-perceived health (p < 0.05) as negative correlates for choice of implant-based reconstruction. Conclusion: For surgeons, nurses, and patients, the authors find uniform evidence of cognitive bias; more specifically, for patients and nurses, the authors find inconsistency in preference for type of surgical therapy chosen when alternative procedures are framed in different ways (i.e., framing bias).
The global under-supply of sperm and oocyte donors is a serious concern for assisted reproductive medicine. Research has explored self-selected populations of gamete donors and their ex-post rationalisations of why they chose to donate. However, such studies may not provide the necessary insight into why the majority of people do not donate. Utilising the unique open form responses of a large sample (n = 1035) of online survey respondents, we examine the reasons participants cite when asked: “Why haven’t you donated your sperm/eggs?.” We categorise these responses into four core themes (conditional willingness, barriers, unconsidered, and conscientious objector) and eleven lower-order themes. We find that, on average, women are more conditionally willing (8.2% difference; p = 0.008) to participate in gamete donation than men. We also find that women are more likely than men to justify their non-donation based on their reproductive history (21.3% difference; p = 0.000) or kin selection and inclusive fitness (5.7% difference; p = 0.008). However, compared to women, men are more likely to validate their non-donation based on sociocultural or social norms (6% difference; p = 0.000) or religion (1.7% difference; p = 0.030). That so many of our study participants report in-principal willingness for future participation in gamete donation speaks to the need for increased research on understanding non-donor population preferences, motivations, and behaviours.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.