Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes

The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments

The scientific understanding of how people perceive and code risks and then use this information in decision making has progressed greatly in the last 20 years. There is considerable evidence that people employ simplifying heuristics in judgement and decision making. These heuristics may lead to bias in how people interpret information. However, much of our understanding of risk perception is based on laboratory studies. It is much less clear whether risk perception in the real world (as in the case of medical treatments) exhibits the same patterns and biases. This paper reviews the published literature on risk perception in patients who face substantial treatment risks. It examines how accurate patients' perception of risk is, what factors affect the perception of risk, and several possible explanations for why patients' risk perception is not always accurate.

Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences

This paper defines risk and its component elements and describes where clinical practice may be starting from in terms of what is reported in the literature about understanding risks and the information requirements of consumers. It notes briefly how theoretical models in the literature contribute to our understanding by providing a basis from which to summarise current evidence about the effects of healthcare interventions which address risks and risk behaviour. The situations or types of interventions in which risk related interventions are most effective are described, but a significant caveat is noted about the types of outcomes which have been reported in the literature and which are most appropriate to evaluate. The effects of "framing" variations in the information given to consumers and the ethical dilemmas these raise for a debate about "informed choice" in healthcare programmes are discussed. In response to both the practical and ethical dilemmas that arise from the current evidence, some of the areas where attention should be focused in the future are outlined so that both health gain and informed choice might be achieved. These include the use of decision aids, although their implementation is not widespread at present. Lessons from the current literature on how further progress can be made towards improved communication, discussion between professionals and consumers, and enhancing informed choice are discussed.

Decision analysis in patient care

To help patients to fully participate in shared decision making is becoming an important goal in clinical practice and one which is receiving increasing attention in terms of the requisite skills and technological development. We discuss the potential application of decision analysis-a specific technology that has been introduced into clinical practice but to date only within research contexts-and examine the usefulness and feasibility of the technique for patients, particularly in settings where clinical presentations are diverse and characterised by uncertainty.

Women's understanding of a "normal smear test result": experimental questionnaire based study

OBJECTIVES

To describe women's understanding of a negative smear test result when presented using the term "normal smear result," as required by the NHS cervical screening programme, and to evaluate the impact on understanding of different ways of presenting the residual risk inherent in such a result.

DESIGN

Experimental questionnaire based study.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were asked to imagine that they had received a normal smear result. The meaning of this result was then presented using different combinations of three different expressions of residual risk of having or developing cervical cancer over the next five years: a verbal probability of absolute risk (low risk), a numerical probability of absolute risk (1 in 5000), or a numerical probability of risk relative to an unscreened woman (five times lower).

PARTICIPANTS

1027 women aged 20 to 64.

RESULTS

When informed only that their smear result was normal, 52% (80 of 153 women) of participants correctly understood that this entailed a residual risk of cervical cancer, compared with 70% (107 of 152) given the additional sentence explaining the meaning of a normal smear result using a verbal probability of absolute risk (difference 18%; 95% confidence interval 7% to 29%). Additionally, explaining the results using a numerical probability of absolute or relative risk did not increase the proportion who correctly understood that there was a residual risk of cervical cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

NHS policy for reporting normal smears needs to change to make it a definite requirement that the reporting of a "normal smear result" is accompanied by a sentence stating that this means a low risk for having or developing cervical cancer in the next five years.