Comparing Physicians Personal Prevention Practices and Their Recommendations to Patients

Atanasov, Pavel; Anderson, Britta L.; Cain, Joanna M.; Schulkin, Jay; Dana, Jason

doi:10.1111/jhq.12042

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with the fact that doctors' own risk and time preferences have been shown to correlate with treatment decisions (Allison et al, 1998;Fiscella et al, 2000;Franks et al, 2000;Holtgrave et al, 1991). Doctors, moreover, may have different risk and time preferences regarding their own health from when they prescribe risky healthcare treatments to their patients (Atanasov et al, 2013;Beisswanger et al, 2003;Galesic, 2014, 2012). This is an intriguing question, and similar patterns have in fact been documented in other doctor-patient interaction contexts, such as the choice of healthcare treatments in a consultation (Ubel et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment

Galizzi

Miraldo

Stavropoulou

et al. 2016

Journal of Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conduct a framed field experiment among patients and doctors to test whether the two groups have similar risk and time preferences. We elicit risk and time preferences using multiple price list tests and their adaptations to the healthcare context. Risk and time preferences are compared in terms of switching points in the tests and the structurally estimated behavioural parameters. We find that doctors and patients significantly differ in their time preferences: doctors discount future outcomes less heavily than patients. We find no evidence that doctors and patients systematically differ in their risk preferences in the healthcare domain.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment

Galizzi

Miraldo

Stavropoulou

et al. 2016

Journal of Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, those who are riskadverse might commit to social distancing. Furthermore, the extant literature shows that human behaviors might be affected by the others by comparing to themselves (for example, Atanasov et al, 2013;Garcia-Retamero and Galesic, 2012). Hence, looking at the uncertainty dimension might offer us how people react in terms of the uncertain situations regarding the COVID-19 outbreaks.…”

Section: Culture and Human Behaviors Under The Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does culture matter social distancing under the COVID-19 pandemic?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is the first to examine the role of the cultural dimension in practising social distancing across the world. By drawing the data from the Google COVID-19 community mobility reports and the Hofstede cultural factors for 58 countries over the period from 16 February to 29 March 2020, we find that countries with higher 'Uncertainty Avoidance Index' predict the lower proportion of people gathering in public such as retail and recreation, grocery and pharmacy, parks, transit stations, workplaces. However, we do not find any predictive factor in having a relationship with the percentage of citizens staying in their residential areas. Our results are robust by adding the control variable as the wealth status, GDP per capita. Hence, this paper suggests some effective communications to contain the COVID-19 pandemic by emphasizing the role of uncertainties.

show abstract

“…(6) The study includes data from Europe. *USA,11 12 14 76–145 New Zealand,74 75 146 147 China,148–150 Japan,151 152 Iran,153 Israel,154–160 Sudan,161 Canada,162 163 Australia,164 165 South Africa,166 Singapore,167 India,168 Hong Kong,169 Brazil170 and one study from both USA, Canada and South Africa 73…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How defensive medicine is defined in European medical literature: a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesDefensive medicine has originally been defined as motivated by fear of malpractice litigation. However, the term is frequently used in Europe where most countries have a no-fault malpractice system. The objectives of this systematic review were to explore the definition of the term ‘defensive medicine’ in European original medical literature and to identify the motives stated therein.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and Cochrane, 3 February 2020, with an updated search on 6 March 2021.MethodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, we reviewed all European original peer-reviewed studies fully or partially investigating ‘defensive medicine’.ResultsWe identified a total of 50 studies. First, we divided these into two categories: the first category consisting of studies defining defensive medicine by using a narrow definition and the second category comprising studies in which defensive medicine was defined using a broad definition. In 23 of the studies(46%), defensive medicine was defined narrowly as: health professionals’ deviation from sound medical practice motivated by a wish to reduce exposure to malpractice litigation. In 27 studies (54%), a broad definition was applied adding … or other self-protective motives. These self-protective motives, different from fear of malpractice litigation, were grouped into four categories: fear of patient dissatisfaction, fear of overlooking a severe diagnosis, fear of negative publicity and unconscious defensive medicine. Studies applying the narrow and broad definitions of defensive medicine did not differ regarding publication year, country, medical specialty, research quality or number of citations.ConclusionsIn European research, the narrow definition of defensive medicine as exclusively motivated by fear of litigation is often broadened to include other self-protective motives. In order to compare results pertaining to defensive medicine across countries, future studies are recommended to specify whether they are using the narrow or broad definition of defensive medicine.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020167215.

show abstract

Comparing Physicians Personal Prevention Practices and Their Recommendations to Patients

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment

Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment

Does culture matter social distancing under the COVID-19 pandemic?

How defensive medicine is defined in European medical literature: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About