Interpretation of recommended risk terms: Differences between doctors and lay people

International Journal of Pharmacy Practice

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 117-124

  Berry, Dianne C ^a   Holden, Wendy ^c   Bersellini, Elisabetta ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

^b School Psychology

^c NUFFIELD ORTHOPAEDIC CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COLLEGE STUDENT; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DRUG LABELING; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PHYSICIAN; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARDIZATION; UNITED KINGDOM; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

EID: 4644307483     PISSN: 09617671     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1211/0022357044120     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough. BMJ 1999;318:318-22.
2. Makoul G, Arntson P, Schofield T. Health promotion in primary care: physician-patient communication and decision making about prescription medications. Soc Sci Med 1995;41:1241-54.
3. Walter FM, Britten N. Patients' understanding of risk: a qualitative study of decision making about the menopause and hormone replacement therapy in general practice. Fam Pract 2002;19:579-86.
4. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black, WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:966-72.
5. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Nat Cancer Inst Monographs 1999;25:149-62.
6. Bynner J, Parsons S. It doesn't get any better: the impact of poor basic skills on the lives of 37 year olds. London: Basic Skills Agency; 1997.
7. Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical students' ability to interpret data. Effect Clin Pract 2002;5:35-40.
8. Brun W, Teigen KH. Verbal probabilities: Ambiguity, context-dependence or both? Org Behaviour Hum Decision Proc 1988;41:390-404.
9. Renooij S, Wittemann C. Talking probabilities: communicating probability information with words and numbers. Int J Approx Reasoning 1999;22:169-44.
10. Merz JF, Druzdzel MJ, Mazur, DJ. Verbal expressions of probability in informed consent litigation. J Med Decision Making 1991;11:273-81.
11. Bryant GD, Norman, GR. Expressions of probability: words and numbers. N Engl J Med 1980;302:411.
12. Mazur DJ, Merz JF. How age, outcome severity, and scale influence general medicine clinic patients' interpretations of verbal probability terms. J Gen Intern Med 1984;9:268-72.
13. Timmermans D. The roles of experience and domain of expertise in using numerical and verbal probability terms in medical decisions. Med Decision Making 1980;14:146-56.
14. Calman KC. Cancer: science and society and the communication of risk. BMJ 1996;313:799-802.
15. Hamm RM. Selection of verbal probabilities. A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Org Behaviour Hum Decision Proc 1991;48:193-223.
16. European Commission. A guideline on the readability of the label and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use. EC Pharmaceuticals Committee; 1998.
17. Dickinson D, Raynor DK, Duman M. Patient information leaflets for medicines: using consumer testing to determine most effective design. Pat Educ Counsel 2001;43:147-59.
18. Berry DC, Knapp PR, Raynor DK. Provision of information about drug side effects to patients. Lancet 2002;359:853-4.
19. Berry DC, Knapp PR, Raynor DK. Is 15% very common? Informing people about the risks of medication side effects. Int J Pharm Pract 2002;10:145-51.
20. Berry DC, Raynor DK, Knapp PR. Communicating risk of medication side effects: An empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology. Psychol Health Med 2003;8:251-63.
21. Knapp PR, Berry DC, Raynor DK. Testing two methods of presenting side effect information about common medicines. Int J Pharm Pract 2001;9:R6.
22. Kong A, Barnett GO, Mosteller F, Youtz C. How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med 1986;315:740-4.
23. Nakao MA, Axelrod S. Numbers are better than words: verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. Am J Med 1983;74:1061-5.
24. Ohnishi M, Fukui T, Matsui K, Hira K, Shinozuka M, Ezaki H, et al. Interpretation of and preference for probability expressions among Japanese patients and physicians. Fam Pract 2002;19:7-11.
25. Janz N, Becker MH. The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Educ Quart 1984;11:1-47.
26. Rogers RW. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change. A revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo JR, Petty RE, editors. Social psychology: A source book. New York: Guildford Press; 1983.
27. Berry DC, Michas IC, Bersellini E. Communicating information about medication side effects: effects on satisfaction, perceived risk to health and intention to comply. Psychol Health 2002;17:247-68.
28. Wallsten TS, Bundescu DU, Zwick R, Kem SM. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bull Psychonomic Soc 1993;31:135-38.
29. Weber EU, Hilton DJ. Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. J Experiment Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 1990;16:781-9.
30. Kuipers B, Moskowitz AJ, Kassierer JP. Critical decisions under uncertainty: Representation and structure. Cognitive Sci 1998;12:177-210.
31. Windschitl PD, Wells GL. Measuring psychological uncertainty: verbal versus numeric methods. J Experiment Psychol: Applied 1996;2:343-64.
32. Rowe G, Wright G. Differences in expert and lay judgements of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Anal 2001;21:341-56.
33. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 1999;19:689-701.
34. Cosmides L, Tooby J. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgement under uncertainty. Cognition 1996;58:1-7.
35. Gigerenzer G. Reckoning with risk. London: Penguin; 2002.
36. Calman K. Issues of risk: this unique opportunity [The William Pickles lecture]. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:47-51.
37. Windschitl PD, Wells GL. The interpretation of 'likely' depends on context but 70% is 70% right? J Experiment Psychol: Learning Memory Cognition 1999;25:1514-33.
38. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decision Making 2001;21:37-44.
39. Edwards A, Matthews E, Pill R, Bloor M. Communicating about risk; the responses of primary care professionals to standardising the language of risk and common tools. Fam Pract 1998;15:301-5.