Communicating risk using absolute risk reduction or prolongation of life formats: Cluster-randomisedtrial in general practice

British Journal of General Practice

Volumn 64, Issue 621, 2014, Pages

  Harmsen, Charlotte Gry ^a   Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø ^a,b   Larsen, Pia Veldt ^a   Nexøe, Jørgen ^a   Støvring, Henrik ^c   Gyrd Hansen, Dorte ^a   Nielsen, Jesper Bo ^a   Edwards, Adrian ^d   Jarbøl, Dorte Ejg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^d CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular disease; Decision making; General practice; Patient participation; Risk assessment; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

CHOLESTEROL; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CHOLESTEROL BLOOD LEVEL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONSULTATION; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRESCRIPTION; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PROLONGATION OF LIFE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZATION; RISK REDUCTION; AGED; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENMARK; HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA; LONG TERM CARE; MIDDLE AGED; NUMBERS NEEDED TO TREAT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADULT; AGED; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DENMARK; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA; LIFE SUPPORT CARE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUMBERS NEEDED TO TREAT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84898728989     PISSN: 09601643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X677824     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ 2002; 324(7341): 827-830.
2. Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Statistical illiteracy undermines informed shared decision making. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2008; 102(7): 411-413.
3. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, et al. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psycholog Sci Public Int 2007; 8(2): 53-96.
4. Petrie KJ, Jago LA, Devcich DA. The role of illness perceptions in patients with medical conditions. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2007; 20(2): 163-167.
5. Goldman RE, Parker DR, Eaton CB, et al. Patients' perceptions of cholesterol, cardiovascular disease risk, and risk communication strategies. Ann Fam Med 2006; 4(3): 205-212.
6. Lytsy P, Westerling R. Patient expectations on lipid-lowering drugs. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 67(1-2): 143-150.
7. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Wood F, et al. Shared decision making and risk communication in practice: a qualitative study of GPs' experiences. Br J Gen Pract 2005; 55(510): 6-13.
8. Heilbrun K, Philipson J, Berman L, Warren J. Risk communication: clinicians' reported approaches and perceived values. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1999; 27(3): 397-406.
9. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 2003; 327(7417): 741-744.
10. Gyrd-Hansen D, Halvorsen P, Nexoe J, et al. Joint and separate evaluation of risk reduction: impact on sensitivity to risk reduction magnitude in the context of 4 different risk information formats. Med Decis Making 2011; 31(1): E1-10.
11. Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D. Communicating treatment effectiveness in the context of chronic disease processes. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2006; 6(6): 673-679.
12. Sheridan SL, Pignone M, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Int Med 2003; 18(1): 884-892.
13. Timmermans DR, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Henneman L. Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73(3): 443-447.
14. Trewby PN, Reddy AV, Trewby CS, et al. Are preventive drugs preventive enough? A study of patients' expectation of benefit from preventive drugs. Clin Med 2002; 2(6): 527-533.
15. Stovring H, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, et al. Communicating effectiveness of intervention for chronic diseases: what single format can replace comprehensive information? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 25.
16. Conroy RM, Pyorala K, Fitzgerald AP, et al. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J 2003; 24(11): 987-1003.
17. Christensen PM, Brosen K, Brixen K, et al. A randomized trial of laypersons' perception of the benefit of osteoporosis therapy: Number needed to treat versus postponement of hip fracture. Clin Ther 2003; 25(10): 2575-2585.
18. Dahl R, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, et al. Can postponement of an adverse outcome be used to present risk reductions to a lay audience? A population survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2007; 7: 8.
19. Halvorsen PA, Selmer R, Kristiansen IS. Different ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146(12): 848-856.
20. Carling CL, Kristoffersen DT, Montori VM, et al. The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial. PLoS Med 2009; 6(8): e1000134.
21. Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB. How do individuals apply risk information when choosing among health care interventions? Risk Anal 2003; 23(4): 697-704.
22. Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB. Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55(9): 888-892.
23. Sorensen L, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, et al. Laypersons' understanding of relative risk reductions: randomised cross-sectional study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 31.
24. Harmsen CG, Jarbol DE, Nexoe J, et al. Impact of effectiveness information format on patient choice of therapy and satisfaction with decisions about chronic disease medication: the 'Influence of intervention Methodologies on Patient Choice of Therapy (IMPACT)' cluster-randomised trial in general practice. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 76.
25. Christensen B, Faergemann O, Heeboll-Nielsen NC, et al. Prevention of ischaemic cardiovascular disease in general practice. A clinical guideline. [3rd Edition] [in Danish]. 1-56. Copenhagen: The Danish College of General Practitioners, 2007.
26. Stovring H, Harmsen CG, Wisloff T, et al. A competing risk approach for the European Heart SCORE model based on cause-specific and all-cause mortality. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2013; 20: 827-836.
27. Gaist D, Sorensen HT, Hallas J. The Danish prescription registries. Dan Med Bull 1997; 44(4): 445-448.
28. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, et al. The development of COMRADE-a patient-based outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication and treatment decision making in consultations. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 50(3): 311-322.
29. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25(24): 3186-3191.
30. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 2005; 8(2): 94-104.
31. Cosby RH, Howard M, Kaczorowski J, Willan AR, Sellors JW. Randomizing patients by family practice: sample size estimation, intracluster correlation and data analysis. Fam Pract 2003; 20(1): 77-82.
32. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information-a review of the effects of 'framing' and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 2001; 6(1): 61-82.
33. Kuhberger A. The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1998; 75(1): 23-55.
34. Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull 1997; 121(1): 3-19.
35. Edwards A, Elwyn G. Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect 2006; 9(4): 307-320.
36. Graversen L, Christensen B, Borch-Johnsen K, et al. General practitioners' adherence to guidelines on management of dyslipidaemia: ADDITION-Denmark. Scand J Prim Health Care 2010; 28(1): 47-54.
37. Kirkegaard P, Edwards AG, Hansen B, et al. The RISAP-study: a complex intervention in risk communication and shared decision-making in general practice. BMC Fam Pract 2010; 11: 70.
38. Nexoe J, Halvorsen PA, Kristiansen IS. Critiques of the risk concept-valid or not? Scand J Public Health 2007; 35(6): 648-654.
39. Organisation of General Practitioners in Denmark (PLO) Population of general practitioners and population of general practices 1977-2009. Key figures from the membership registry [in Danish]. 1-38. PLO, 2009.
40. Organisation of General Practitioners in Denmark (PLO) Census of general practices 2009 [in Danish]. 1-8. PLO, 2009.
41. Hsee CK, Loewenstein GF, Blount S, Bazerman MH. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psycholog Bull 1999; 125(5): 576-590.
42. Wright JC, Weinstein MC. Gains in life expectancy from medical interventions-standardizing data on outcomes. N Engl J Med 1998; 339(6): 380-386.
43. Grol R, van WC. Getting a grip on guidelines: how to make them more relevant for practice. Br J Gen Pract 2009; 59(562): e143-e144.
44. Joyce KE, Lord S, Matlock DD, et al. Incorporating the patient perspective: a critical review of clinical practice guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2013; 36(2): 185-197.
45. Sudlow M, Thomson R. Clinical guidelines: quantity without quality. Qual Health Care 1997; 6(2): 60-61.