Communication about risk: The responses of primary care professionals to standardizing the 'language of risk' and communication tools

Family Practice

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 301-307

  Edwards, Adrian ^b   Matthews, Elaine ^b   Pill, Roisin ^b   Bloor, Michael ^a  

^a Dept of Social and Admin Studies ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Primary care; Qualitative research; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; GENERAL PRACTICE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH VISITOR; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE; NORMAL HUMAN; NURSE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RISK; STANDARDIZATION;

COMMUNICATION; FAMILY PRACTICE; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROFESSIONAL-PATIENT RELATIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 0031716922     PISSN: 02632136     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/15.4.301     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Edwards A, Prior L, Department of General Practice University of Wales College of Medicine. Communication about risk - dilemmas for general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 1997; 47: in press.
2. Royal College of General Practitioners. The nature of general medical practice. Reports from General Practice. London: Royal College of General Practitioners, 1996: 27.
3. Bryant GD, Norman GR. Expressions of probability: words and numbers. New Eng J Med 1980; 302: 411.
4. Mazur DJ. Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medical clinic. J Gen Int Med 1990; 5: 402-405.
5. Sutherland HJ, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Sem F, Brooks L, Till JE. Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients: is there noise on the line? Soc Sci Med 1991; 32: 725-731.
6. Conn LD, Schydlower M, Foley J, Copeland RL. Adolescents' misinterpretation of health risk probability expressions. Pediatrics 1995; 95: 713-716.
7. Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. Br Med J 1994; 309: 761-764.
8. Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decision Making 1995; 15: 152-157.
9. Marteau T, Drake H, Bobrow M. Counselling following diagnosis of a fetal abnormality: the differing approaches of obstetricians, clinical geneticists, and genetic nurses. J Med Gen 1994; 31: 864-867.
10. Parsons EP, Atkinson PA. Lay constructions of genetic risk. Sociol Health Illness 1992; 14: 437-455.
11. Calman KC. Cancer: science and society and the communication of risk. Br Med J 1996; 313: 799-802.
12. Calman KC. On the state of the public health. Health Trends 1996; 28: 79-88.
13. Calman KC. On the State of the Public Health: the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health for the Year 1995. London: HMSO, 1996.
14. Paling J, Paling S. Up to your Armpits in Alligators. Florida: John Paling and Co., Ltd, 1996.
15. Davison C, Macintyre S, Davey Smith G. The potential social impact of predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to common chronic diseases. A review and proposed research agenda. Sociol Health Illness 1994; 16: 340-371.
16. Clarke A. Population screening for genetic susceptibility to disease. Br Med J 1995; 311: 35-38.
17. Austoker J. Screening in Primary Care. London: BMJ Publications, 1993.
18. Frankland J, Bloor M. Some issues arising in the systematic analysis of focus group materials. Barbour R, Kitzinger J (eds). The Use of Focus Groups in Health Research. 1st edn. London: Sage, 1997.
19. Asbury J-E. Overview of focus group research. Qualitat Health Res 1995; 5: 414-420.
20. Edwards A, Matthews E, Pill RM, Bloor M. Communication about risk: diversity among primary care professionals. Fam Pract 1998; 15: 296-300.
21. Bandolier. Alligator Alley: Paling Perspective Scale. Bandolier 1996; 3: 8.
22. Edwards A, Pill RM, Stott NCH. Communicating risk: use of standard terms is unlikely to result in standard interpretation. Br Med J 1996; 313: 1483.
23. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Zwick R, Kemp SM. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information. Bulletin Psychonomic Soc 1993; 31: 135-138.
24. Bogaert MG, van der Stichele RH. Drug treatment: risk perception by the public and the health professionals. Eur J Clin Res 1994; 6: 203-207.
25. Mazur DJ, Merz JF. Patients' interpretations of verbal expressions of probability: implications for securing informed consent to medical interventions. Behav Sci Law 1994; 12: 417-426.
26. Merz JF, Druzdzel MJ, Mazur DJ. Verbal expressions of consent in informed consent litigation. Med Decision Making 1991; 11: 273-281.
27. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ. Changing inaccurate perceptions of health risk: results from a randomised trial. Health Psychology 1996; 14: 56-63.
28. Adelsward V, Sachs L. The meaning of 6.8: numeracy and normality in health information talks. Soc Sci Med 1996; 43: 1179-1187.
29. Lowry DLB, Campbell SA, Krivchenia EL, Dvorin E, Duquette D, Evans MI. Impact of abnormal second-trimester maternal serum single, double, and triple screening on patient choices about prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagnosis Ther 1995; 10: 286-289.