Helping patients decide: Ten steps to better risk communication

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 103, Issue 19, 2011, Pages 1436-1443

  Fagerlin, Angela ^a,b   Zikmund Fisher, Brian J ^b   Ubel, Peter A ^c  

^a Ann Arbor VA HSR and D   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER THERAPY; COMPREHENSION; HEALTH EDUCATION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; EMOTIONS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; ODDS RATIO; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 80054060884     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djr318     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ. 2002;325(7370):961-964. (Pubitemid 35265218)
2. Lantz P, Janz N, Fagerlin A, et al. Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(3):745-767. (Pubitemid 40791614)
3. Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. Adult literacy in America. A first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Statistical Analysis Report: U. S. Department of Education; 1993 August. Report No.: NCES 93275.
4. Fagerlin A, Rovner D, Stableford S, Jentoft C, Wei JT, Holmes-Rovner M. Patient education materials about the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: a critical review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(9):721-728. (Pubitemid 38568988)
5. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37-44. (Pubitemid 32245029)
6. Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: Implications for academic medical centres. BMJ 2002;325(7370):961-964. (Pubitemid 35265218)
7. Politi M, Han PKH, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):681-695. (Pubitemid 47547605)
8. Holmes-Rovner M, Stableford S, Fagerlin A, et al. Evidence-based patient choice: a prostate cancer decision aid in plain language. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005;5(1):16.
9. Clement S, Ibrahim S, Chrichton N, Wolf M, Rowlands G. Complex interventions to improve the health of people with limited literacy: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75(3):340-351.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Literacy. [updated October 25, 2010]. http://www.cdc.gov/healthmarketing/healthliteracy/.
11. Plain Language Association International. Web Sites for Writers. [updated July 28, 2009]. http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/Resources/websites.html.
12. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81(24):1879-1886. (Pubitemid 20026073)
13. 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(11):884-892. (Pubitemid 37510616)
14. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8(10):543-548. (Pubitemid 23312931)
15. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92(2):121-124.
16. Baron J. Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation. J Risk Uncertain. 1997;14(3):301-309.
17. Akl E, Oxman AD, Jerrin J, et al. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(3):1-85.
18. Covey JA. Meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):638-654.
19. Chao C, Studts JL, Abell T, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(23):4299-4305. (Pubitemid 46621805)
20. Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Giustetto G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994;343(8907):1209-1211. (Pubitemid 24147560)
21. Tait A, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A. The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between texts, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010;15(5):487-501.
22. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):149-163.
23. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696-713. (Pubitemid 47547606)
24. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kikafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608-618. (Pubitemid 44649360)
25. Ancker J, Kaufman D. Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(6):713-721. (Pubitemid 350026411)
26. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(2):209-214.
27. Fagerlin A, Dillard AJ, Smith DM, et al. Women's interest in taking tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer prevention: response to a tailored decision aid. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127(3):681-688.
28. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage M, Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(1):34-43. (Pubitemid 46068150)
29. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jankovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact[312] of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):448-455.
30. Friedman M. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1962.
31. Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel P. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making. 2005;25(4):398-405. (Pubitemid 41023166)
32. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Gigerenzer G. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Med Decis Making. 2010;10(6):672-684.
33. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med. 1998;73(5):538-540. (Pubitemid 28261913)
34. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(6):459-467. (Pubitemid 33070851)
35. Cuite C, Weinstein N, Emmons K, Colditz G. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(3):377-384. (Pubitemid 351713304)
36. Peters E, Hart PS, Fraenkel L. Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side-effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):432-436.
37. Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Roberts T, Derry H, Ubel P. Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk occurence. J Health Commun. 2008;13(2):107-124. (Pubitemid 351304461)
38. Ubel P, Smith D, Zikmund-Fisher B, et al. Testing whether decision aids introduce cognitive biases: results of a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(2):158-163.
39. Broadbent D, Vines R., Broadbent M. Recency effects in memory, as a function of modality of intervening events. Psychol Res. 1978;40(1):5-13.
40. Klein W. Self-prescriptive, perceived, and actual attention to comparative risk information. Psychol Health. 2003;18(5):625-643. (Pubitemid 37155476)
41. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. "Is 28% good or bad?": evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(2):142-148. (Pubitemid 38391934)
42. Hsee CK. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Dec Process. 1996;67(3):247-257. (Pubitemid 126164514)
43. Teigen K, Brun W. Ambiguous probabilities: when does p = 0.3 reflect a possibility and when does it express a doubt? J Behav Decis Making. 2000;13(3):345-362.
44. Windschitl PD, Martin R, Flugstad AR. Context and the interpretation of likelihood information: the role of intergroup comparisons on perceived vulnerability. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;82(5):742-755.
45. Zajac LE, Klein WMP, McCaul KD. Absolute and comparative risk perceptions as predictors of cancer worry: moderating effects of gender and psychological distress. J Health Commun. 2006;11(suppl 1):37-49. (Pubitemid 44594383)
46. Lipkus IM, Klein WMP, Skinner CS, Rimer BK. Breast cancer risk perceptions and breast cancer worry: what predicts what? J Risk Res. 2005;8(5):439-452. (Pubitemid 43203532)
47. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. "If I'm better than average, then I'm ok?": comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69(1-3):140-144. (Pubitemid 350051684)
48. Peters E, Dieckmann NF, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(2):169-190. (Pubitemid 46570715)
49. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. A demonstration of "less can be more" in risk graphics. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(6):661-671.
50. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Angott AM, Ubel PA. The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(1):79-87.
51. Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options via simpler risk graphics. Cancer. 2008;113(12):3382-3390.
52. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(4):980-991. (Pubitemid 32176272)
53. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Inattention to the length of time displayed biases comprehension of survival graphs. Risk Anal. 2005;25(3):589-595. (Pubitemid 41133002)
54. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Mortality versus survival graphs: improving temporal consistency in perceptions of treatment effectiveness. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66(1):100-107. (Pubitemid 46366614)