How should the impact of different presentations of treatment effects on patient choice be evaluated? A pilot randomized trial

PLoS ONE

Volumn 3, Issue 11, 2008, Pages

  Carling, Cheryl ^a   Kristoffersen, Doris Tove ^a   Herrin, Jeph ^b   Treweek, Shaun ^a   Oxman, Andrew D ^a   Schünemann, Holger ^c   Akl, Elie A ^d   Montori, Victor ^e  

^a NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c REGINA ELENA NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^e Mayo Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DRUG COST; DRUG RESPONSE; DRUG UTILIZATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNET; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PILOT STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; RISK REDUCTION; SOCIAL BACKGROUND; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TECHNIQUE;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CORONARY DISEASE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; INTERNET; METHODS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PILOT PROJECTS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION BEHAVIOR;

EID: 56849122307     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003693     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk, London: Earthscan Publications.
3. Lloyd AJ (2001) The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Quality in Health Care 10 Suppl 1: i14-i18.
4. Ghosh AK, Ghosh K (2005) Translating evidence-based information into effective risk communication: current challenges and opportunities. Journal of Laboratory & Clinical Medicine 145: 171-180.
5. Lipkus IM (2007) Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making 27: 696-713.
6. McGettigan P, Sly K, O'Connell D, Hill S, Henry D (1999) The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine 14: 633 642.j.
7. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R (2001) Presenting risk information-a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes. Journal of Health Communication 6: 61-82.
8. Ghosh AK, Erwin P, Ghosh K (2002) Effective risk communication: multiple modalities, unclear consensus. A review of literature. Journal of Investigative Medicine; 50: 182.
9. Wills CE, Holmes-Rovner M (2003) Patient comprehension of information for shared treatment decision making: state of the art and future directions. Patient Education & Counseling 50: 285-290.
10. Moxey A, O'Connell D, McGettigan P, Henry D (2003) Describing treatment effects to patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine 18: 948-959.
11. Covey J (2007) A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Medical Decision Making 27: 638-654.
12. Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P (2006) A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 12: 13-23.
13. Entwistle VA, Sheldon TA, Sowden A, Watt IS (1998) Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 14: 212-225.
14. Ratliff A, Angell M, Dow RW, Kuppermann M, Nease RF, et al. (1999) What is a good decision? Effective Clinical Practice 2: 185-197.
15. Edwards A, Elwyn G (1999) How should effectiveness of risk communication to aid patients' decisions be judged? A review of the literature. Medical Decision Making 19: 428-434.
16. Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Rovner DR, Schmitt N, Rothert M, et al. (1999) Patient decision support intervention: increased consistency with decision analytic models. Medical Care 37: 270-284.
17. O'Connor A, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Stacey D, eds (2005) IPDAS Collaboration Background Document. International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, 2005. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_Background.pdf.
18. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D, et al. (2003) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. [update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD001431; PMID: 11686990].
19. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1944.
20. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine 118: 622-629.
21. Schünemann HJ, Griffith L, Jaeschke R, Goldstein R, Stubbing D, Guyatt GH (2003) Evaluation of the minimal important difference for the feeling thermometer and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire in patients with chronic airflow obstruction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 56: 1170-1176.
22. Schoemaker PJH (1982) The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Economic Literature 20: 529-535.
23. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF (1982) The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Medical Decision Making 2: 449-462.
24. Hellinger FJ (1989) Expected utility theory and risky choices with health outcomes. Medical Care 27: 273-279.
25. Frisch D, Clemen RT (1994) Beyond expected utility: rethinking behavioral decision research. Psychological Bulletin 116: 46-54.
26. Schwartz S, Griffin T (1986) Medical Thinking: The Psychology of Medical Judgment and Decision Making. New York: Springer-Verlag.
27. Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics 5: 1-30.
28. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, et al. (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 5: 1-186.
29. Morimoto T, Fukui T (2002) Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. Journal of Epidemiology 12: 160-178.
30. Froberg DG, Kane RL (1989) Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 42: 459-471.
31. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, et al. (1982) The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Medical Decision Making 2: 449-462.
32. Stiggelbout AM (2000) Assessing patients' preferences. In: Chapman G, Sonnenberg F, eds. Decision research in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp 289-312.
33. Skolbekken JA (1998) Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs. BMJ 316: 1956-1958.
34. Hollnagel H (1996) On the language of risk in the medical consultation [Danish]. Practicus 116: 237-9.
35. Anderson KM, Wilson PW, Odell PM, Kannel WB (1991) An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals. Circulation 83: 356-362.
36. LaRosa JC, He J, Vupputuri S (1999) Effect of statins on risk of coronary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 282: 2340-2346.
37. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2002) Applied Logistic Regression, Second Edition London: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
38. Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Second Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlabaum Associates. pp 109-43.
39. Schonlau M, Fricker RD Jr, Elliott MN (2002) Conducting Research Surveys via E-mail and the Web. RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/ monograph_reports/MR1480/index.html#.
40. Edwards A, Thomas R, Williams R, Ellner AL, Brown P, et al. (2006) Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial. Patient Education & Counseling 63: 336-349.
41. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL (1987) A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. Journal of Chronic Diseases 40: 1129-1133.
42. Badia LX, Herdman M, Schiaffino A (1999) Determining correspondence between scores on the EQ-5D "thermometer" and a 5-point categorical rating scale. Medical Care 37: 671-677.
43. Schünemann HJ, Griffith L, Jaeschke R, Goldstein R, Stubbing D, et al. (2003) Evaluation of the minimal important difference for the feeling thermometer and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire in patients with chronic airflow obstruction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 56: 1170-1176.
44. Dawes RM (1979) The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist 34; 7: 571-582.
45. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1109-86.
46. Wiseman D, Levin IP (1996) Comparing risky decision making under conditions of real and hypothetical consequences. Org Behavior Human Dec Proc 66: 241-50.
47. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM (1993) The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. Journal of General Internal Medicine 8: 543-548.
48. Misselbrook D, Armstrong D (2001) Patients' responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension. British Journal of General Practice 51: 276-279.
49. O'Connor AM, Boyd NF, Tritchler DL, Kriukov Y, Sutherland H, et al. (1985) Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments. The influence of framing, medium, and rater variables. Medical Decision Making 5: 453-463.
50. Rothman AJ, Martino SC, Bedell BT, Detweiler JB, Salovey P (1999) The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25: 1355-69.