Expressing medicine side effects: Assessing the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm, and the provision of baseline risk information

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 63, Issue 1-2, 2006, Pages 89-96

  Berry, Dianne C ^a   Knapp, Peter ^b   Raynor, Theo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Absolute risk; Baseline risk information; Number needed to harm; Relative risk

Indexed keywords

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

ARTICLE; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; RISK REDUCTION; THROMBOEMBOLISM; THROMBOSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CONTRACEPTIVES, ORAL; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENGLAND; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MIDDLE AGED; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; RISK REDUCTION BEHAVIOR; TEACHING MATERIALS; THROMBOEMBOLISM; WOMEN;

EID: 33748472614     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Coulter A., Entwistle V., and Gilbert D. Informing patients: an assessment of the quality of patient information leaflets (1998), Kings Fund, London
2. Mottram D.R., and Reed C. Comparative evaluation of patient information leaflets by pharmacists, doctors and the general public. J Clin Pharm Ther 22 (1997) 127-134
3. Charles C., Gafni A., and Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical context: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 44 (1997) 681-692
4. Berry D.C. Risk, communication and health psychology (2004), Open University Press, Maidenhead
5. Anon. Number needed to treat or harm (NNT/NNH). Bandolier (1997) 36
6. Nuovo J., Melnikow J., and Chang D. Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized control trials. J Amer Med 287 (2002) 2813-2815
7. Rajkumar S., Sampathkumar P., and Gustafson A. Number needed to treat is a simple measure of treatment efficacy for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med 11 (1996) 357-359
8. Moynihan R., Bero L., Ross-Degnan D., Henry D., Lee K., Watkins J., Mah C., and Soumerai S. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Eng J Med 22 (2000) 1645-1650
9. Lacy C.R., Barone J.A., Suh D.C., Malini P.L., Bueno M., Moylan D.M., and Kostis J.B. Impact of presentation of research results on likelihood of prescribing medications to patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol 87 (2001) 203-207
10. Misselbrook D., and Armstrong D. Patients' responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension. Br J Gen Pract 51 (2001) 276-279
11. Nexoe J., Gyrd-Hansen D., Kragstrup J., Kristiansen I.S., and Nielsen J.B. Danish GPs' perception of disease risk and benefit prevention. Fam Pract 19 (2002) 3-6
12. Sheridan S.L., and Pignone M.P. Numeracy and the medical students' ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract 5 (2002) 35-40
13. Jick H., Kaye J.A., Vasilakis-Scaramozza C., and Jick S.S. Risk of venous thromboembolism among users of third generation oral contraceptives compared with users of oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel before and after 1995; cohort and case-control analysis. Br Med J 321 (2000) 1190-1195
14. Sheridan S.L., Pignone M.P., and Lewis C.L. A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med 18 (2003) 884-892
15. Gigerenzer G., and Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. Br Med J 327 (2003) 741-744
16. Schechtman E. Odds ratio, relative risk, absolute risk reduction, and the number needed to treat - which of these should we use?. Value Health 5 (2002) 430-435
17. Skolbekken J.A. Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs. Br Med J 316 (1998) 1956-1958
18. Leung W.C. Risk information study was marred by poor design. Br J Gen Pract 51 (2002) 493-494
19. Chandler C., Greening L., Robinson L.J., and Stoppelbein L. It can't happen to me ... or can it? Conditional base rates affect subjective probability judgements. J Exp Psychol App 5 (1999) 361-378
20. Natter H., and Berry D.C. Effects of presenting baseline risk when comparing absolute and relative risk presentations. Psychol Health Med 10 (2005) 326-334
21. Nexoe J., Kristiansen I.S., Gyrd-Hansen D., and Nielsen J.B. Influence of number needed to treat, costs and outcome on preferences for a preventative drug. Fam Pract 22 (2005) 126-131
22. Woloshin S., Schwartz L.M., Byram S., Fischoff B., and Welch H.G. A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance; a validation study. Med Decis Making 20 (2000) 298-307
23. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Am Psychol 39 (1984) 341-350
24. Koehler J.J. The base rate fallacy reconsidered: descriptive, normative and methodological challenges. Behav Brain Sci 19 (1996) 1-53
25. Wilson T.D., Houston C.E., and Brekke N. A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. J Exp Psychol Gen 125 (1996) 387-402
26. Chaiken S., Wood W., and Eagley A.H. Principles of persuasion. In: Higgins ET., and Kruglanski AW. (Eds). Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (1996), Guildford Press, New York
27. Griffen R.J., Neuwirth K., Giese J., and Dunwoody S. Linking the Heuristic Systematic Model and depth of processing. Communic Res 29 (2002) 705-732
28. Berry D.C., Knapp P., and Raynor D.K. Provision of information about drug side effects to patients. Lancet 359 (2002) 853-854
29. Knapp P., Raynor D.K., and Berry D.C. Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Qual Saf Health Care 13 (2004) 176-180