Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T03:17:26.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Same same, but different: effects of likelihood framing on concerns about a medical disease in patients with somatoform disorders, major depression, and healthy people

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2023

Tobias Kube Open the ORCID record for Tobias Kube [Opens in a new window] ,
Jenny Riecke ,
Jens Heider ,
Julia A. Glombiewski ,
Winfried Rief  and
Arthur J. Barsky
Tobias Kube*
Affiliation:
Harvard Medical School, Program in Placebo Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, 02115, Boston, MA, USA RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ostbahnstr. 10, 76829 Landau, Germany
Jenny Riecke
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Philipps-University Marburg, Gutenbergstr. 18, 35032 Marburg, Germany
Jens Heider
Affiliation:
RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ostbahnstr. 10, 76829 Landau, Germany Schön Clinic Roseneck, Am Roseneck 6, 83209 Prien am Chiemsee, Germany
Julia A. Glombiewski
Affiliation:
RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ostbahnstr. 10, 76829 Landau, Germany
Winfried Rief
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Philipps-University Marburg, Gutenbergstr. 18, 35032 Marburg, Germany
Arthur J. Barsky
Affiliation:
Harvard Medical School, Program in Placebo Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, 02115, Boston, MA, USA Brigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA
*
Corresponding author: Tobias Kube; Email: kube@uni-landau.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Research has shown that patients with somatoform disorders (SFD) have difficulty using medical reassurance (i.e. normal results from diagnostic testing) to revise concerns about being seriously ill. In this brief report, we investigated whether deficits in adequately interpreting the likelihood of a medical disease may contribute to this difficulty, and whether patients’ concerns are altered by different likelihood framings.

Methods

Patients with SFD (N = 60), patients with major depression (N = 32), and healthy volunteers (N = 37) were presented with varying likelihoods for the presence of a serious medical disease and were asked how concerned they are about it. The likelihood itself was varied, as was the format in which it was presented (i.e. negative framing focusing on the presence of a disease v. positive framing emphasizing its absence; use of natural frequencies v. percentages).

Results

Patients with SFD reported significantly more concern than depressed patients and healthy people in response to low likelihoods (i.e. 1: 100 000 to 1:10), while the groups were similarly concerned for likelihoods ⩾1:5. Across samples, the same mathematical likelihood caused significantly different levels of concern depending on how it was framed, with the lowest degree of concern for a positive framing approach and higher concern for natural frequencies (e.g. 1:100) than for percentages (e.g. 1%).

Conclusions

The results suggest a specific deficit of patients with SFD in interpreting low likelihoods for the presence of a medical disease. Positive framing approaches and the use of percentages rather than natural frequencies can lower the degree of concern.

Keywords

Health communicationmedical reassurancerisk perceptionsomatic symptom disordersomatoform disorder
Type
Original Article
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 53 , Issue 16 , December 2023 , pp. 7729 - 7734
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barnes, K., Faasse, K., Geers, A. L., Helfer, S. G., Sharpe, L., Colloca, L., & Colagiuri, B. (2019). Can positive framing reduce nocebo side effects? Current evidence and recommendation for future research. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 10, 167. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.00167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsky, A. J., Ahern, D. K., Bailey, E. D., Saintfort, R., Liu, E. B., & Peekna, H. M. (2001). Hypochondriacal patients’ appraisal of health and physical risks. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(5), 783–787.10.1176/appi.ajp.158.5.783CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, M., Feldmann, M., Kirchner, L., & Kube, T. (2022). Oversampled and undersolved: Depressive rumination from an active inference perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 142, 104873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodemer, N., Meder, B., & Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Communicating relative risk changes with baseline risk: Presentation format and numeracy matter. Medical Decision Making, 34(5), 615–626.10.1177/0272989X14526305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faasse, K., Huynh, A., Pearson, S., Geers, A. L., Helfer, S. G., & Colagiuri, B. (2019). The influence of side effect information framing on nocebo effects. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(7), 621–629.10.1093/abm/kay071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gierk, B., Kohlmann, S., Kroenke, K., Spangenberg, L., Zenger, M., Brähler, E., & Löwe, B. (2014). The somatic symptom scale–8 (SSS-8): A brief measure of somatic symptom burden. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(3), 399–407.10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12179CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(2), 53–96.10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., & Galesic, M. (2012). Why do single event probabilities confuse patients? Statements of frequency are better for communicating risk. BMJ, 344(7839), e245.10.1136/bmj.e245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurm, H. S., & Litaker, D. G. (2000). Framing procedural risks to patients: Is 99% safe the same as a risk of 1 in 100? Academic Medicine, 75(8), 3.10.1097/00001888-200008000-00018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. M., Lobb, E. A., Pendlebury, S. C., Leighl, N., … Tattersall, M. H. (2005). Communicating with realism and hope: Incurable cancer patients’ views on the disclosure of prognosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(6), 1278–1288.10.1200/JCO.2005.11.138CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayter, A. J. (1986). The maximum familywise error rate of Fisher's least significant difference test. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 1000–1004.10.1080/01621459.1986.10478364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.Google Scholar
Kapur, S., & Munafò, M. (2019). Small sample sizes and a false economy for psychiatric clinical trials. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(7), 676–677.10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korn, C. W., Sharot, T., Walter, H., Heekeren, H. R., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Depression is related to an absence of optimistically biased belief updating about future life events. Psychological Medicine, 44(3), 579–592. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291713001074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kube, T., Riecke, J., Heider, J., Ballou, S. K., Glombiewski, J. A., Rief, W., & Barsky, A. J. (2023). How the integration of normal medical test results can be improved in patients with somatoform disorders—An experimental study. Health Psychology, 42(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kube, T., Schwarting, R., Rozenkrantz, L., Glombiewski, J. A., & Rief, W. (2020). Distorted cognitive processes in major depression: A predictive processing perspective. Biological Psychiatry, 87(5), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.07.017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeMoult, J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2019). Depression: A cognitive perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 69, 51–66.10.1016/j.cpr.2018.06.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, J. R., & Serlin, R. C. (1991). New developments in pairwise multiple comparisons: Some powerful and practicable procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 577–586.Google Scholar
Linton, S. J., Boersma, K., Vangronsveld, K., & Fruzzetti, A. (2012). Painfully reassuring? The effects of validation on emotions and adherence in a pain test. European Journal of Pain, 16(4), 592–599.10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.07.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mao, A., Barnes, K., Sharpe, L., Geers, A. L., Helfer, S. G., Faasse, K., & Colagiuri, B. (2021). Using positive attribute framing to attenuate nocebo side effects: A cybersickness study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 55(8), 769–778.10.1093/abm/kaaa115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C. Jr, & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306(21), 1259–1262.10.1056/NEJM198205273062103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miranda, R., & Mennin, D. S. (2007). Depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and certainty in pessimistic predictions about the future. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31(1), 71–82.10.1007/s10608-006-9063-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, A. M., Pennie, R. A., & Dales, R. E. (1996). Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects experienced: The case of influenza immunization. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 11(49), 1271–1276.10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00177-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perneger, T. V., & Agoritsas, T. (2011). Doctors and patients’ susceptibility to framing bias: A randomized trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(12), 1411–1417.10.1007/s11606-011-1810-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, E., Hart, P. S., & Fraenkel, L. (2011). Informing patients: The influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Medical Decision Making, 31(3), 432–436.10.1177/0272989X10391672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rief, W., Heitmuller, A. M., Reisberg, K., & Ruddel, H. (2006). Why reassurance fails in patients with unexplained symptoms—An experimental investigation of remembered probabilities. PLoS Medicine, 3(8), 1266–1273.10.1371/journal.pmed.0030269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56(suppl_1), S202–S220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salkovskis, P. M., & Warwick, H. M. (1986). Morbid preoccupations, health anxiety and reassurance: A cognitive-behavioural approach to hypochondriasis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24(5), 597–602.10.1016/0005-7967(86)90041-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serlin, R. C., & Seaman, M. A. (1994). A controlled, powerful multiple-comparison strategy for several situations. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 153–159.Google Scholar
Toussaint, A., Murray, A. M., Voigt, K., Herzog, A., Gierk, B., Kroenke, K., … Löwe, B. (2016). Development and validation of the somatic symptom disorder–b criteria scale (SSD-12). Psychosomatic Medicine, 78(1), 5–12.10.1097/PSY.0000000000000240CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zetsche, U., Bürkner, P.-C., & Renneberg, B. (2019). Future expectations in clinical depression: Biased or realistic? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(7), 678–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Kube et al. supplementary material

Kube et al. supplementary material
Download Kube et al. supplementary material(File)
File 22.4 KB