Primary Outcomes (end points)
To gauge the effect of the treatments on respondents' preferences for getting an EHR, our primary outcome is the answer to the question: "If you were offered to have an electronic health or patient record (EHR) set up for you with excellent data security and privacy protection features (minimal effort required; all costs paid by your health insurance), would you agree to have an EHR set up for you?" (6 response options, from "definitely no" to "definitely yes").
To gauge the effect of the treatments on respondents' intended use of an EHR, our primary outcome will be the answer to the question: "If an electronic patient record were set up for you (by default), how frequently would you expect to make use it, for instance, by having your doctor(s) consult information in the record and enter information about your visits, having other health service providers (such as a physical therapist) review or add information, or having your pharmacist record the prescriptions filled for you? (7 response options, from "virtually never" to "virtually always"; mid-point anchor-label "every other time"). For both of these outcome variables, if the information treatments work as expected, we would expect higher support for getting an EHR set up and a higher expected level of intended usage among the treated. Since we would generally assume respondents to be more self-interested than altruistic, this effect should be strongest for the first treatment (immediacy of the personal/private medical care benefit), a bit weaker for the more diffuse personal/private medical care benefit highlighted in the second treatment, and weakest for the third, public interest-focused treatment.
We also ask respondents to tell us their overall assessment. An additional outcome therefore consists of the answers to the question: "On balance, do you think the benefits/upside potential exceed the costs/downside risks? Please consider pros and cons both for you personally and for society (if any)." (horizontal slider from –10 (labeled "downside risks exceed potential benefits") to +10 ("potential benefits exceed down") with the midpoint at 0 labeled "potential benefits approximately equal downside risks"). If the treatments work as expected, the average score on this overall assessment should be higher for those in the treated group (with similar differences among the treatments as for the primary outcome).