Earlier this week, the NYT reported on interesting research related to the ways in which we evaluate medical risk. Here's the catchy opening:
The situation is imaginary, but the dilemma it illustrates is quite real. A deadly influenza moves across the world from Asia, finally arriving on our shores.
There is no cure, and your doctor tells you that you have a 10 percent chance of dying from it. An effective vaccine is widely available, made from a weakened form of the virus. But it has an unfortunate side effect: there is a 5 percent chance that a patient will die from the less serious form of the flu it can cause. . . .
Judging by the numbers alone, there is a clear answer to this hypothetical problem: a person is much better off taking the vaccine. But people do not always arrive at health decisions by applying mathematical models, and in some cases the numbers may be less important than other considerations.
In a new study published in the June issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, researchers found that the answer depended on which role the person was asked to assume. Only 48 percent of the participants said they would take the vaccine themselves. But 57 percent said they would give it to their children; 63 percent said that if they were doctors they would give it to patients; and 73 percent said that if they were the medical director of a hospital they would recommend the vaccine for all patients.
A very puzzling result.
Posted by: Jonathan Pfeiffer | 07/02/2006 at 03:34 PM