↓ Skip to main content

Can Appealing to Patient Altruism Reduce Overuse of Health Care Services? An Experimental Survey

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Can Appealing to Patient Altruism Reduce Overuse of Health Care Services? An Experimental Survey
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4002-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin R. Riggs, Peter A. Ubel, Brendan Saloner

Abstract

A challenge to reducing overuse of health services is communicating recommendations against unnecessary health services to patients. The predominant approach has been to highlight the limited benefit and potential harm of such services for that patient, but the prudent use of health resources can also benefit others. Whether appealing to patient altruism can reduce overuse is unknown. To determine whether altruistic appeals reduce hypothetical requests for overused services and affect physician ratings. Experimental survey using hypothetical vignettes describing three overused health services (antibiotics for acute sinusitis, imaging for acute low back pain, and annual exams for healthy adults). U.S. adults recruited from Research Now, an online panel of individuals compensated for performing academic and marketing research surveys. In the control version of the vignettes, the physician's rationale for recommending against the service was the minimal benefit and potential for harm. In the altruism version, the rationale additionally included potential benefit to others by forgoing that service. Differences in requests for overused services and physician ratings between participants randomized to the control and altruism versions of the vignettes. A total of 1001 participants were included in the final analyses. There were no significant differences in requests for overused services for any of the clinical scenarios (P values ranged from 0.183 to 0.547). Physician ratings were lower in the altruism version for the acute sinusitis (6.68 vs. 7.03, P = 0.012) and back pain scenarios (6.14 vs. 6.83, P < 0.001), and marginally lower for the healthy adult scenario (5.27 vs. 5.57, P = 0.084). In this experimental survey, altruistic appeals delivered by physicians did not reduce requests for overused services, and resulted in more negative physician ratings. Further studies are warranted to determine whether alternative methods of appealing to patient altruism can reduce overuse.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Psychology 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 22 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,777,297
of 24,831,063 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,371
of 8,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,502
of 430,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#20
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,831,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.