Randomised controlled trial comparing three methods of presenting risk of Down's syndrome

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions

BACKGROUND

The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of using alternative statistical presentations of the same risks and risk reductions on understanding, perception, persuasiveness and behaviour of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), PsycLIT (1887 to October 2007), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 3). We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and non-randomized controlled parallel and cross-over studies. We focused on four comparisons: a comparison of statistical presentations of a risk (eg frequencies versus probabilities) and three comparisons of statistical presentation of risk reduction: relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), RRR versus number needed to treat (NNT), and ARR versus NNT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 studies reporting 83 comparisons. None of the studies involved policy makers. Participants (health professionals and consumers) understood natural frequencies better than probabilities (SMD 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.93)). Compared with ARR, RRR had little or no difference in understanding (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.43)) but was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.41 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.79)) and more persuasive (SMD 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.81)). Compared with NNT, RRR was better understood (SMD 0.73 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.04)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 1.15 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.50)) and was more persuasive (SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.80)). Compared with NNT, ARR was better understood (SMD 0.42 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.71)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.79 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.15)).There was little or no difference for persuasiveness (SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.15)). The sensitivity analyses including only high quality comparisons showed consistent results for persuasiveness for all three comparisons. Overall there were no differences between health professionals and consumers. The overall quality of evidence was rated down to moderate because of the use of surrogate outcomes and/or heterogeneity. None of the comparisons assessed behaviourbehaviour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Natural frequencies are probably better understood than probabilities. Relative risk reduction (RRR), compared with absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT), may be perceived to be larger and is more likely to be persuasive. However, it is uncertain whether presenting RRR is likely to help people make decisions most consistent with their own values and, in fact, it could lead to misinterpretation. More research is needed to further explore this question.

What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria

OBJECTIVE

To survey quality criteria for evidence-based patient information (EBPI) and to compile the evidence for the identified criteria.

METHODS

Databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX and Education Research Information Center (ERIC) were searched to update the pool of criteria for EBPI. A subsequent search aimed to identify evidence for each criterion. Only studies on health issues with cognitive outcome measures were included. Evidence for each criterion is presented using descriptive methods.

RESULTS

3 systematic reviews, 24 randomized-controlled studies and 1 non-systematic review were included. Presentation of numerical data, verbal presentation of risks and diagrams, graphics and charts are based on good evidence. Content of information and meta-information, loss- and gain-framing and patient-oriented outcome measures are based on ethical guidelines. There is a lack of studies on quality of evidence, pictures and drawings, patient narratives, cultural aspects, layout, language and development process.

CONCLUSION

The results of this review allow specification of EBPI and may help to advance the discourse among related disciplines. Research gaps are highlighted.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings outline the type and extent of content of EBPI, guide the presentation of information and describe the development process.