Primary care patients? recognition of their own risk for cardiovascular disease: Implications for risk communication in practice

Current Opinion in Cardiology

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 471-476

  Van Der Weijden, Trudy ^a   Bos, Linda B J ^a   Koelewijn Van Loon, Marije S ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular risk tables; Primary prevention; Risk communication; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; OPTIMISM; PERCEPTION; PESSIMISM; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK REDUCTION; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPREHENSION; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; PATIENT; PATIENT EDUCATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR;

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; COMPREHENSION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENTS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 54949105257     PISSN: 02684705     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/HCO.0b013e32830b35f6     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. de Backer G, Ambrosioni E, Borch Johnsen K, et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease and prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J 2003; 24:1601-1610.
2. Beswick A, Brindle P. Risk scoring in the assessment of cardiovascular risk. Curr Opin Lipidol 2006; 17:375-386.
3. Van Steenkiste B, Grol R, van der Weijden T. Systematic review of implementation strategies for risk tables in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Vasc Health Risk Manag (in press).
4. Erhardt L, Hobbs FD. Public perceptions of cardiovascular risk in five European countries: the react survey. Int J Clin Pract 2002; 56:638-644.
5. van Steenkiste BC, van der Weijden T, Stoffers HEJH, Grol R. Barriers to implementing cardiovascular risk tables in routine general practice. Scan J Prim Health Care 2004; 22:32-37.
6. van Steenkiste B, van der Weijden T, Timmermans D, et al. Patients' ideas, fears and expectations of their coronary risk: barriers for primary prevention. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 55:301-307.
7. Angus J, Evans S, Lapum J, et al. 'Sneaky disease': the body and health knowledge for people at risk for coronary heart disease in Ontario, Canada. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60:2117-2128.
8. Bachmann LM, Gutzwiller FS, Puhan MA, et al. Do citizens have minimum medical knowledge? A survey. BMC Med 2007; 5:1 4.
9. Bellg AJ. Maintenance of health behavior change in preventive cardiology. Behav Modif 2003; 27:103-131.
10. Lutfey KE, Wishner WJ. Beyond 'compliance' is 'adherence'. Improving the prospect of diabetes care. Diabetes Care 1999; 22:635-639.
11. Avis NE, Smith KW, McKinlayJB. Accuracy of perceptions of heart attack risk: what influences perceptions and can they be changed? Am J Public Health 1989; 17:1608-1612.
12. Lewis DK, Robinson J, Wilkinson E. Factors involved in deciding to start preventive treatment: qualitative study of clinician's and lay people's attitude. BMJ 2003; 327:841-847.
13. Cockburn J, Pit S. Prescribing behaviour in general practice: patients' expectations and doctor's perceptions of patients' expectations. A questionnaire study. BMJ 1997; 315:520-523.
14. Stewart M. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Can Med Assoc J 1995; 152:1423-1433.
15. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE. Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care 1989; 275: 5110-5127.
16. vanSteenkisteB,vander WeijdenT, Stoffers HEJH. Improving cardiovascular risk management: a randomized controlled trial on the effect of a decision support tool for patients and physicians. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2007; 14:44-50.
17. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003:CD001 431.
18. Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making 2007; 27:681 -695.
19. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007; 27:696-713.
20. Weinstein ND. What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25:15-20.
21. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 2001; 127:267-286.
22. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 2004; 24:311 -322.
23. Weaver NF, Murtagh M, Thomson RG. How do newly diagnosed hypertensives understand 'risk'? Narratives used in coping with risk. Fam Pract 2006; 23:637-643.
24. van der Weijden T, van Steenkiste B, Stoffers HEJH. Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in general practice. Mismatch between cardiovascular riskand the patient's risk perception. Med Decis Making 2007; 27:754-761.
25. Kreuter MW, Strechter VJ. Changing inaccurate perceptions of health risk: results from a randomised trial. Health Psychol 1995; 14:56-63.
26. Marteau TM, Kinmonth AL, Pyke S, Thompson SG. Readiness for lifestyle advice. Self-assessment of coronary risk prior to screening in the British Family Heart Study. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45:5-8.
27. Samsa GP, Cohen SJ, Goldstein LB, et al. Knowledge of risk among patients at increased risk of stroke. Stroke 1997; 28:916-921.
28. Frijling BD, Lobo CM, Keus IM, et al. Perceptions of cardiovascular risk among patients with hypertension or diabetes. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 52:47-53.
29. Koelewijn-van Loon MS, van Steenkiste B, Ronda G, et al. Improving patient adherence to lifestyle advice (IMPALA): a cluster-randomised controlled trial on the implementation of a nurse-led intervention for cardiovascular risk management in primary care. Protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 2008; 8:9.
30. AdriaanseMC, SnoekFJ, DekkerJM, et al. Perceived risk for type 2 diabetes in participants in a stepwise population-screening programme. Diabet Med 2003; 20:210-215.
31. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, et al. Presenting risk information - a review of the effects of 'framing' and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 2001; 6:61-82.
32. Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making 1995; 15:152-157.
33. Skolbekken J-A. Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs. BMJ 1998; 316:1956-1958.
34. Misselbrook D, Armstrong D. Patients' responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension. Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51:276-279.
35. Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18:884-892.
36. Gigerenzer G. Why does framing influence judgment? J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18:960-961.
37. Moxey A, O'Connell D, McGettigan P, Henry D. Describing treatment effects to patients. How they are expressed makes a difference. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18:948-959.
38. Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, et al. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making 2000; 20:228-238.
39. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25:149-163.
40. Timmermans D, Molewijk B, Stiggelbout A, Kievit J. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Educ Couns 2004; 54:255-263.
41. Rakow T. Differences in belief about likely outcomes account for differences in doctors' treatment preferences: but what accounts for the differences in belief? Qual Health Care 2001; 10 (Suppl 1):i44-i49.
42. Covey J. A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Med Decis Making 2007; 27:638-654.
43. Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B,Chan L, et al. Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefitfrom treatment. Ann Fam Med 2008; 6:213 - 21 7.
44. Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Baratt A, et al. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract 2006; 12:13-23.
45. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from in-numeracy to insight. BMJ 2003; 327:741 -744.
46. Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, van den Broek E, et al. 'A 30% chance of rain tomorrow': how does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal 2005; 25:623-629.
47. Edwards A, Thomas R, Williams R. Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 63:336-349.
48. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patent decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006; 333:417-423.
49. Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Welch G. The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making 2007; 27:655-662.
50. Giltay EJ, Kamphuis MH, Kalmijn S. Dispositional optimism and the risk of cardiovascular death. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:431 -436.
51. Hamm RM, Bard DE, Hsieh E, Stein HF. Contingent or universal approaches to patientdeficiencies in health numeracy. Med Decis Making 2007; 27:635-637.