The perceived severity of a disease and the impact of the vocabulary used to convey information: using Rasch scaling in a simulated oncological scenario

References

• InerneySJMIntroducing the biopsychosocial model for good medicine and good doctorsBMJ20183241533
   Google Scholar
• Borrell-CarrióFSuchmanALEpsteinRMThe biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiryAnn Fam Med20042657658215576544
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BergesonSCDeanJDA systems approach to patient-centered careJAMA2006296232848285117179462
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DoyleCLennoxLBellDA systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectivenessBMJ Open201331e00157018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StewartMAEffective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a reviewCMAJ19951529142314337728691
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuireLCRemembering what the doctor said: organization and adults’ memory for medical informationExp Aging Res19962244034288968711
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CantrellCRPriestJLCookCLFinchamJBurchSPAdherence to treatment guidelines and therapeutic regimens: a US claims-based benchmark of a commercial populationPopul Health Manag2011141334121142978
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrownMTBussellJKMedication adherence: WHO cares?Mayo Clin Proc201186430431421389250
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StreetRLMakoulGAroraNKEpsteinRMHow does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomesPatient Educ Couns200974329530119150199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MatusitzJSpearJEffective doctor–patient communication: an updated examinationSoc Work Public Health201429325226624802220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZolnierekKBDimatteoMRPhysician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysisMed Care200947882683419584762
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RodinGMackayJAZimmermannCClinician–patient communication: a systematic reviewSupport Care Cancer200917662764419259706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OngLMde HaesJCHoosAMLammesFBDoctor–patient communication: a review of the literatureSoc Sci Med19954079039187792630
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van DalenJCommunication skills in context: trends and perspectivesPatient Educ Couns201392329229523810181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HaJFLongneckerNDoctor–patient communication: a reviewOchsner J2010101384321603354
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• NaughtonCPatient-centered communicationPharmacy201861818
   Google Scholar
• BiedrzyckiBADecision making for cancer clinical trial participation: a systematic reviewOncol Nurs Forum2010376E387E39921059572
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• NelsonWStefanekMPetersEMcCaulKDBasic and applied decision making in cancer controlHealth Psychol2005244SS3S816045416
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BowlingAEbrahimSMeasuring patients’ preferences for treatment and perceptions of riskQual Health Care2001101i2i811533430
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BrewerNTChapmanGBGibbonsFXGerrardMMcCaulKDWeinsteinNDMeta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccinationHealth Psychol200726213614517385964
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LoewensteinGFWeberEUHseeCKWelchNRisk as feelingsPsychol Bull2001127226728611316014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SlovicPPerception of RiskLondonEarthspan2001
   Google Scholar
• ApoloneGMosconiPKnowledge and opinions about clinical research. A cross-sectional survey in a sample of Italian citizensJ Ambul Care Manage2003261838712545517
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MosconiPPoliPGioloAApoloneGHow Italian health consumers feel about clinical research: a questionnaire surveyEur J Public Health200515437237916014662
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AbereggSKHaponikEFTerryPBOmission bias and decision making in pulmonary and critical care medicineChest200512831497150516162749
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RitovIBaronJReluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguityJ Behav Decis Mak199034263277
   Google Scholar
• BaronJRitovIReference points and omission biasOrgan Behav Hum Decis Process1994593475498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BaronJRitovIOmission bias, individual differences, and normalityOrgan Behav Hum Decis Process20049427485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ConnollyTRebJOmission bias in vaccination decisions: where’s the “omission”? Where’s the “bias”?Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2003912186202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AschDABaronJHersheyJCOmission bias and pertussis vaccinationMed Decis Making19941421181238028464
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DibonaventuraMChapmanGBDo decision biases predict bad decisions? Omission bias, naturalness bias, and influenza vaccinationMed Decis Making200828453253918319507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FischhoffBRisk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of processRisk Anal19951521371457597253
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RothmanAJSaloveyPShaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framingPsychol Bull199712113199000890
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NishimuraACareyJErwinPJTilburtJCMuradMHMcCormickJBImproving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trialsBMC Med Ethics201314281428
   Google Scholar
• Paasche-OrlowMKTaylorHABrancatiFLReadability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readabilityN Engl J Med2003348872172612594317
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrandbergYJohanssonHBergenmarMPatients’ knowledge and perceived understanding – associations with consenting to participate in cancer clinical trialsContemp Clin Trials Commun201621561129736441
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• KassNETaylorHAAliJHallezKChaissonLA pilot study of simple interventions to improve informed consent in clinical research: feasibility, approach, and resultsClin Trials2015121546625475879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KarunaratneASKorenmanSGThomasSLMylesPSKomesaroffPAImproving communication when seeking informed consent: a randomised controlled study of a computer-based method for providing information to prospective clinical trial participantsMed J Aust2010192738839220367586
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TaitARVoepel-LewisTZikmund-FisherBJFagerlinAThe effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphicsJ Health Commun201015548750120677054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HenryJPalmerBWPalinkasLGloriosoDKCaligiuriMPJesteDVReformed consent: adapting to new media and research participant preferencesIRB200931218
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• KassNETaylorHAAliJHallezKChaissonLA pilot study of simple interventions to improve informed consent in clinical research: feasibility, approach, and resultsClin Trials2015121546625475879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StunkelLBensonMMclellanLComprehension and informed consent: assessing the effect of a short consent formIRB201032419
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BurroRSavardiUAnnunziataMAde PaoliPBianchiIThe effects of presenting oncologic information in terms of opposites in a medical contextPatient Prefer Adherence20181244345929628757
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OngLMVisserMRLammesFBde HaesJCDoctor–patient communication and cancer patients’ quality of life and satisfactionPatient Educ Couns200041214515612024540
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OngLMVisserMRKruyverIPThe Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) in oncological consultations: psychometric propertiesPsychooncology1998753874019809330
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IshikawaHTakayamaTYamazakiYSekiYKatsumataNPhysician– patient communication and patient satisfaction in Japanese cancer consultationsSoc Sci Med200255230131112144143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VenetisMKStaplesSRobinsonJDKearneyTProvider information provision and breast cancer patient well-beingHealth Commun201827111
   Google Scholar
• RobinsonJDHeritageJPhysicians’ opening questions and patients’ satisfactionPatient Educ Couns200660327928516431070
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SiminoffLARavdinPColabianchiNSturmCMDoctor–patient communication patterns in breast cancer adjuvant therapy discussionsHealth Expect200031263611281909
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• RaschGProbabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment TestsChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press1980
   Google Scholar
• AndrichDRasch Models for Measurement68Newbury ParkSage1988
   Google Scholar
• GavaruzziTLottoLRumiatiRFagerlinAWhat makes a tumor diagnosis a call to action? On the preference for action versus inactionMed Decis Making201131223724420671207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrownRFButowPNEllisPBoyleFTattersallMHSeeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials: describing current practiceSoc Sci Med200458122445245715081196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HietanenPAroARHolliKAbsetzPInformation and communication in the context of a clinical trialEur J Cancer200036162096210411044647
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HollandJBrowmanGMcDonaldMSaginurRProtecting human research participants: reading vs understanding the consent formJ Natl Cancer Inst20131051392792823821756
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MillerSMHudsonSVEglestonBLThe relationships among knowledge, self-efficacy, preparedness, decisional conflict, and decisions to participate in a cancer clinical trialPsychooncology201322348148922331643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchumacherASikovWMQuesenberryMIInformed consent in oncology clinical trials: a Brown University Oncology Research Group prospective cross-sectional pilot studyPLoS One2017122e017295728235011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CosmidesLToobyJAre humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertaintyCognition1996581173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GigerenzerGHoffrageUHow to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formatsPsychol Rev19951024684704
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacchiLPragmatic aspects of the base-rate fallacyQ J Exp Psychol A1995481188207
   Google Scholar
• BondTFoxCMApplying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human SciencesAbingdonRoutledge2015
   Google Scholar
• WrightBDMastersGNRating Scale Analysis Rasch MeasurementChicagoMesa Press1982
   Google Scholar
• BurroRTo be objective in experimental phenomenology: a psychophysics applicationSpringerplus201651172027777856
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BurroRSartoriRVidottoGThe method of constant stimuli with three rating categories and the use of Rasch modelsQual Quant20114514358
   Google Scholar
• AnselmiPVidottoGBettinardiOBertolottiGMeasurement of change in health status with Rasch modelsHealth Qual Life Outcomes20151311625889854
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CampbellNRPhysics: The ElementsCambridgeCambridge University Press2013
   Google Scholar
• LuceRDKrantzDHSuppesPTverskyAFoundations of Measurement3San DiegoAcademic1990
   Google Scholar
• CavanaghRFRomanoskiJTRating scale instruments and measurementLearn Environ Res200793273289
   Google Scholar
• R Core TeamR: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]Vienna, AustriaR Foundation for Statistical Computing2018
   Google Scholar
• MastersGNA Rasch model for partial credit scoringPsychometrika1982472149174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MairPHatzingerRExtended Rasch modeling: the eRm package for the application of IRT models in RJ Stat Softw2007209120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WrightBDLinacreJMReasonable mean-square fit valuesRasch Meas Trans19948370371
   Google Scholar
• LinacreJMInfit Wdoand Outfit, mean-square and standardized mean?Rasch Meas Trans200216878
   Google Scholar
• SmithEVEvidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: a Rasch measurement perspectiveJ Appl Meas20012328131112011511
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• LinacreJMFacets Rasch measurement computer program (Version 3810) [Computer Software]Chicago, ILWinsteps.com2018
   Google Scholar
• BlandJMAltmanDGMultiple significance tests: the Bonferroni methodBMJ199531069731707833759
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BelvedereSLde MortonNAApplication of Rasch analysis in health care is increasing and is applied for variable reasons in mobility instrumentsJ Clin Epidemiol201063121287129720971422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChristensenKBKreinerSMesbahMRasch Models in HealthLondonWiley2013
   Google Scholar
• EngbergAGardeBKreinerSRasch analysis in the development of a rating scale for assessment of mobility after strokeActa Neurol Scand1995911187572069
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VidottoGMoroniLBurroRA revised short version of the depression questionnaireEur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil201017218719720215970
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• RocchiSGhidelliCBurroRThe Walsh family resilience questionnaire: the Italian versionNeuropsychiatr Dis Treat2017132987299929290684
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RustøenTLerdalAGayCKottorpARasch analysis of the Herth Hope Index in cancer patientsHealth Qual Life Outcomes201816119620530285767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TyWChenCTHuangYJHouWHWangJDHsiehCLRasch analysis of the 9-item shared decision making questionnaire in women with breast cancerCancer Nurs20181929206682
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AshleyLSmithABKedingAJonesHVelikovaGWrightPPsychometric evaluation of the revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R) in cancer patients: confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysisJ Psychosom Res201375655656224290046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CosteJTissierFPouchotJRasch analysis for assessing unidimensionality and identifying measurement biases of malignancy scores in oncology. The example of the Weiss histopathological system for the diagnosis of adrenocortical cancerCancer Epidemiol201438220020824631426
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BulsaraCEStylesIDevelopment of a cancer related patient empowerment scale using the polytomous Rasch measurement modelCancer Clin Oncol20132187102
   Google Scholar
• DegnerLFSloanJADecision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play?J Clin Epidemiol19924599419501432023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CoxKInformed consent and decision-making: patients’ experiences of the process of recruitment to Phases I and II anti-cancer drug trialsPatient Educ Couns2002461313811804767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BiedrzyckiBAFactors and outcomes of decision making for cancer clinical trial participationOncol Nurs Forum201138554255221875841
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MurphyMLSemantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy and Other ParadigmsCambridgeCambridge University Press2003
   Google Scholar
• CroftWCruseDACognitive LinguisticsCambridgeCambridge University Press2004
   Google Scholar
• JonesSMurphyMLParadisCWillnersCAntonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and CanonicityCambridgeCambridge University Press2012
   Google Scholar
• FallowfieldLFordSLewisSNo news is not good news: information preferences of patients with cancerPsychooncology19954319720211655006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ErevICohenBLVerbal versus numerical probabilities: efficiency, biases, and the preference paradoxOrgan Behav Hum Decis Process1990451118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PoultonECBias in Quantifying JudgmentHillsdaleLawrence Erlbaum1989
   Google Scholar
• MoxeyLMSanfordAJCommunicating quantities: a review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectivesAppl Cogn Psychol2000143237255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MaslinAA survey of the opinions on ‘informed consent’ of women currently involved in clinical trials within a breast unitEur J Cancer Care (Engl)1994341531627704350
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BrockDWWartmanSAWhen competent patients make irrational choicesN Engl J Med199032222159515992336090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar