The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Surrogate Decision Makers' Interpretation of Prognostic Information: A Mixed-Methods Study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about why surrogate decision makers for patients with advanced illness often have overly optimistic expectations about prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To determine how surrogates interpret prognostic statements and to explore factors influencing surrogates' interpretations of grim prognostic information. DESIGN: Multicenter, mixed-methods study. SETTING: Intensive care units of 3 hospitals in San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: 80 surrogates of critically ill patients. MEASUREMENTS: Participants recorded their interpretation of 16 prognostic statements using a standard probability scale. Generalized estimating equations were used to determine whether participants interpreted statements more optimistically as the expressed probability of survival decreased. Fifteen surrogates whose responses exhibited this trend participated in a semistructured interview. RESULTS: Participants' interpretations of prognostic statements expressing a low risk for death were relatively accurate, but interpretations of statements conveying a high risk for death were more optimistic than the actual meaning (P < 0.001; generalized estimating equation model). Interpretations of the statement "90% chance of surviving" did not differ from the actual meaning, but interpretations of "5% chance of surviving" were more optimistic and showed substantial variability (median, 90% [interquartile range, 90% to 95%; P = 0.11] vs. 15% [interquartile range, 5% to 40%; P < 0.001], respectively). Two main themes from the interviews explained this trend: surrogates' need to register optimism in the face of a poor prognosis and surrogates' belief that patient attributes unknown to the physician would lead to better-than-predicted outcomes. LIMITATION: Surrogates' interpretations were elicited in an experimental setting rather than during actual clinician-surrogate conversations. CONCLUSION: Inaccurate interpretations of physicians' prognostications by surrogates arise partly from optimistic biases rather than simply from misunderstandings. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“their own prognostic estimates may also have served as “illocutionary acts”—that is, expressions distinct from comprehension with which they intended to express positive attitude, optimism, or faith; to highlight patients’ unrecognized qualities of resilience; or to counter clinicians’ pessimism (15, 34–36).”
From Effects of a Personalized Web-Based Decision Aid for Surrogate Decision Makers of Patients With Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation (2019) · cites this paper as [36]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
(2006) · Cited by 18,730
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine.
(1991) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-114-9-825_9 · Cited by 3,497
A Controlled Trial to Improve Care for Seriously III Hospitalized Patients
Connors, A. F. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.274.20.1591 · Cited by 3,451
Ethnicity and Attitudes Toward Patient Autonomy
Blackhall, L. J. (1995) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530100060035 · Cited by 1,011
Azoulay, E., Chevret, S., Leleu, G., Pochard, F., Barboteu, M., Adrie, C., Canoui, P., Le Gall, J. R., & Schlemmer, B. (2000) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-200008000-00061 · Cited by 746
A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory
Reyna, V. F. (2008) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x08327066 · Cited by 602
Murphy, D. J., Burrows, D. L., Santilli, S., Kemp, A. W., Tenner, S. M., Kreling, B. A., & Teno, J. M. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199402243300807 · Cited by 581
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Carson, S. S., Cox, C. E., Wallenstein, S., Hanson, L. C., Danis, M., Tulsky, J. A., Chai, E., & Nelson, J. E. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8474 · Cited by 352
White, D. B., Ernecoff, N., Buddadhumaruk, P., Hong, S., Weissfeld, L., Curtis, J. R., Luce, J. M., & Lo, B. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5351 · Cited by 232
Self-citationCox, C. E., White, D. B., Hough, C. L., Jones, D. M., Kahn, J. M., Olsen, M. K., Lewis, C. L., Hanson, L. C., & Carson, S. S. (2019) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-2335 · Cited by 152
Self-citationDionne‐Odom, J. N., Kent, E. E., Rocque, G. B., Azuero, A., Harrell, E. R., Gazaway, S., Reed, R. D., Bratches, R. W., Bechthold, A. C., Lee, K., et al. (2023) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13805 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Zier, L. S., Sottile, P. D., Hong, S. Y., Weissfield, L. A., & White, D. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zier, Lucas S.
- ORCID
- Zier, Lucas S.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2012-03-06
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 360-366
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- PMC
- PMC3530840
- OpenAlex
- W1977488532
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 14.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL094553)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Keywords
- surrogate decision-making, optimism bias, critical illness, intensive care unit patients, end-of-life care, survival probability, advance care planning
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Physician's Role, Probability, Professional-Family Relations, Prognosis, Surveys and Questionnaires, San Francisco, Critical Illness
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
