Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 392

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding patients' decisions. Cognitive and emotional perspectives

Donald A. Redelmeier·1993·JAMA

Abstract

Objective. —To describe ways in which intuitive thought processes and feelings may lead patients to make suboptimal medical decisions. Design. —Review of past studies from the psychology literature. Results. —Intuitive decision making is often appropriate and results in reasonable choices; in some situations, however, intuitions lead patients to make choices that are not in their best interests. People sometimes treat safety and danger categorically, undervalue the importance of a partial risk reduction, are influenced by the way in which a problem is framed, and inappropriately evaluate an action by its subsequent outcome. These strategies help explain examples where risk perceptions conflict with standard scientific analyses. In the domain of emotions, people tend to consider losses as more significant than the corresponding gains, are imperfect at predicting future preferences, distort their memories of past personal experiences, have difficulty resolving inconsistencies between emotions and rationality, and worry with an intensity disproportionate to the actual danger. In general, such intangible aspects of clinical care have received little attention in the medical literature. Conclusion. —We suggest that an awareness of how people reason is an important clinical skill that can be promoted by knowledge of selected past studies in psychology. (JAMA. 1993;270:72-76)

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

OpenAlex · 10.1001/jama.270.1.72

Cites

2 of 2 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.

Metadata

Authors
Redelmeier, D. A.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association
Published
1993-07-07
Volume
270
Issue
1
Pages
72-76
ISSN
0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4239034898
Cited by
392
References
2
FWCI
8.14
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: Understanding patients' decisions. Cognitive and emotional perspectives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.270.1.72
The paper
Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). Understanding patients' decisions. Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.270.1.72

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.