Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: A descriptive pilot study

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 1, Issue , 2001, Pages 1-11

  Fortin, Jennifer M ^a   Hirota, Linda K ^b   Bond, Barbara E ^c   O'Connor, Annette M ^d   Col, Nananda F ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b SIMMONS COLLEGE   (United States)

^c TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CLIMACTERIUM; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMMUNITY CARE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HIGH SCHOOL; HIP FRACTURE; HORMONE SUBSTITUTION; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; LIFESPAN; MEASUREMENT; PATIENT INFORMATION; PILOT STUDY; POSTMENOPAUSE; RACE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVIVAL; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MENOPAUSE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREMENOPAUSE; RISK; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS;

COMMUNICATION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MENOPAUSE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PILOT PROJECTS; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREMENOPAUSE; RISK; RISK ADJUSTMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 3142546266     PISSN: 14726947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-1-1     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bell RA, Kravitz RL, Wilkes MS: Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising and the public. JGIM 1999, 14:651-657
2. Mazur DH, Hickam DH: Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic. JGIM 1990, 5:402-405
3. Mazur DJ, Merz JF: How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences. JAGS 1993, 41:223-228
4. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH: Patients' and physicians' interpretations of graphic data displays. Med Decis Mak 1993, 13:59-63
5. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, Welch HG: Women's perceptions of breast cancer risk: How you ask matters. Med Decis Mak 1999, 19:221-229
6. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM: The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. JGIM 1993, 8:543-548
7. McGettigan P, Sly K, O'Connell D, Hill S, Henry D: The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians. JGIM 1999, 14:633-642
8. Hux JE, Levinton CM, Naylor CD: Prescribing propensity: Influence of life-expectancy gains and drug costs. JGIM 1994, 9:195-201
9. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM: Absolutely relative: How research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Amer J Med 1992, 92:121-124
10. Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K: Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ 1994, 309:761-764
11. Hux JE, Naylor CD: Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: Does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Mak 1995, 15:152-157
12. Barrett-Connor E: Hormone replacement therapy. BMJ 1998, 317:457-461
13. Grady D, Rubin SM, Petitti DB, Fox CS, Black D, Ettinger B, et al: Hormone therapy to prevent disease and prolong life in postmenopausal women. Ann Intern Med 1992, 117:1016-1037
14. Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, Furberg C, Henington D, Riggs B, Vittinghoff E: Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. JAMA. 1998, 280:605-613
15. Colditz GA, Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ, Willett WC, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Hennekens C, Rosner B, Speizer FE: The use of estrogens and progestins and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 1995, 332:1589-1593
16. Nikolajevic-Sarunac J, Henry DA, O'Connell DL, Robertson J: Effects of information framing on the intentions of family physicians to prescribe long-term hormone replacement therapy. JGIM 1999, 14:591-598
17. O'Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, Elmslie T, Jolly E, Hollingworth G, et al: A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: Decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Counsel. 1998, 33:267-279
18. Lenert LA, Cher D: Use of meta-analytic models to support shared decision making over the WWW. JAMIA. 1999, 6:412-419
19. Dickson GW, DeSanctis G, McBride DJ: Understanding the effectiveness of computer graphics for decision support: a cumulative experimental approach. Communications of the ACM. 1986, 29:40-7
20. Lucas HC, Nielson NR: The impact of the mode of information presentation on learning and performance. Manage Sci. 1980, 26:982-93
21. Bradt B: Informational needs and selected variables in patients receiving brachytherapy. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1991, 18:1221-7
22. Powers M, Lashley C, Sanchez P, Shneiderman B: An experimental comparison of tabular and graphic data presentation. Int J Man-Machine Studies. 1984, 20:545-66
23. Tullis TS: An evaluation of alphanumeric, graphic and color information displays. Human Factors. 1981, 23:531-50
24. Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, Brundage MD, Mackillop WJ: Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2000, 20:228-238
25. Schapira M, Nattinger A, Eparvier: Identification of a risk magnitude bias associated with type of graphic format used to present probabilistic information. Med Decis Making. 2000
26. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG: The visual communications of risk. JNCI Monographs. 1999, 25:149-163
27. Weinstein ND, Sahdman PM: Some criteria for evaluating risk Risk Anal. 1993, 13:103-114
28. Col NF, Eckman MH, Karas RH, Pauker SG, Goldberg RJ, Ross EM, Orr RK, Wong JB: Patient-specific decisions about hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. JAMA 1997, 277:1140-1147
29. Dupont WD, Plummer WD: Understanding the relationship between relative and absolute risk. Cancer 1996, 77:2193-2199
30. Chatellier G, Zapletal E, Lemaitre D, Menard J, Degoulet P: The number needed to treat: a clinically useful monogram in its proper context. BMJ 1996, 312:426-429
31. Cook RJ, Sackett DL: The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995, 310:452-4