2010
DOI: 10.1080/10410230903544902
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Persuading Physicians to Test Their Patients' Level of Kidney Functioning: The Effects of Message Frame and Point of View

Abstract: A two-part field experiment was conducted to determine the effects of message frame (gain vs. loss) and point of view (personal vs. impersonal) on physicians' intentions and behavior to test their patients' level of kidney functioning. One hundred and fifty-one physicians returned a survey that accompanied one of four different experimental cover letters or a generic control letter. One hundred and twelve (74%) of these physicians also completed and returned a follow-up survey sent approximately 4 months later… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In total, 406 pediatricians completed and returned this survey, for an overall response rate of 34.7%. This sample size compares favorably to those obtained in other recent health communication studies using a survey research method with physicians as research participants ( M = 101, range = 46–152) (Roberto, Goodall, West, & Mahan, 2010; Bertakis & Azari, 2007; Kelly, Thompson, & Waters, 2006). This sample size also compares favorably to the nine TRA studies that used physicians as research patricians reviewed by Perkins et al (2007).…”
Section: Method1supporting
confidence: 59%
“…In total, 406 pediatricians completed and returned this survey, for an overall response rate of 34.7%. This sample size compares favorably to those obtained in other recent health communication studies using a survey research method with physicians as research participants ( M = 101, range = 46–152) (Roberto, Goodall, West, & Mahan, 2010; Bertakis & Azari, 2007; Kelly, Thompson, & Waters, 2006). This sample size also compares favorably to the nine TRA studies that used physicians as research patricians reviewed by Perkins et al (2007).…”
Section: Method1supporting
confidence: 59%
“…As noted by Salovey and Wegener (2003, p. 61), some health‐related behaviors, such as Pap tests and colonoscopies, might plausibly be described as either (or both) a disease‐detection behavior or a disease‐prevention behavior; in the interest of focusing on clear‐cut studies of disease detection behaviors, studies of such “dual‐function” behaviors were excluded (Miles, Brotherstone, Robb, Atkin, & Wardle, 2005; Mullins, 2005; Rivers, Salovey, Pizarro, Pizzaro, & Schneider, 2005; Wilkin, 2004). Following similar reasoning, we excluded studies in which a message advocated both detection behaviors and prevention behaviors (Block & Keller, 1995, Study 1) and studies in which the disease condition to be detected was not the audience's (Nan, 2007a, other target condition; Nan, 2007c; Roberto, Goodall, West, & Mahan, in press).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As with patients who may adhere to preconceived and anticipated outcomes of living kidney donation, clinicians are influenced by personal experiences, patient expectations and culture (Roberto, 2010;Majeske, 1996 The goal for excellence in medical practice is the treatment of the patient and the care they are afforded, whereas the goal within research is the contribution to scientific knowledge. Though transplantation is no longer considered to be experimental as it once was (McRae, 2006), there are newer methods of achieving transplantation that may only be used at the discretion of the clinician or when more traditional methods are less likely to be successful.…”
Section: Primum Non Nocere: First Do No Harmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinicians often frame messages to patients in terms of gain and loss and levels of risk to the patient (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981;Roberto, 2010) in order to convey consequences of patient behaviours and decisions. For instance, the cost of physical discomfort to the donor or even their death due to a complication must be weighed against the perceived psychological benefit of helping another person achieve better quality of life or contributing to the common good (Kuczewski, 2002).…”
Section: Primum Non Nocere: First Do No Harmmentioning
confidence: 99%