Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Medical Decision Making in Situations That Offer Multiple Alternatives

Redelmeier, Donald A.·1995·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether situations involving multiple options can paradoxically influence people to choose an option that would have been declined if fewer options were available. DESIGN: Mailed survey containing medical scenarios formulated in one of two versions. PARTICIPANTS: Two groups of physicians: members of the Ontario College of Family Physicians (response rate = 77%; n = 287) and neurologists and neurosurgeons affiliated with the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (response rate = 84%; n = 352). One group of legislators belonging to the Ontario Provincial Parliament (response rate = 32%; n = 41). INTERVENTION: The basic version of each scenario presented a choice between two options. The expanded version presented three options: the original two plus a third. The two versions otherwise contained identical information and were randomly assigned. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants treatment recommendations. RESULTS: In one scenario involving a patient with osteoarthritis, family physicians were less likely to prescribe a medication when deciding between two medications than when deciding about only one medication (53% vs 72%; P < .005). Apparently, the difficulty in deciding between the two medications led some physicians to recommend not starting either. Similar discrepancies were found in decisions made by neurologists and neurosurgeons concerning carotid artery surgery and by legislators concerning hospital closures. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of additional options can increase decision difficulty and, hence, the tendency to choose a distinctive option or maintain the status quo. Awareness of this cognitive bias may lead to improved decision making in complex medical situations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1995.03520280048038

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Redelmeier, D. A.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1995-01-25
Volume
273
Issue
4
Pages
302
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2057290859
Cited by
422
References
17
FWCI
4.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Medical Decision Making in Situations That Offer Multiple Alternatives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1995.03520280048038
The paper
Redelmeier, D. A. (1995). Medical Decision Making in Situations That Offer Multiple Alternatives. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520280048038

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.