Evidence-based health information and risk competence

Efficacy of Three Numerical Presentation Formats on Lay People's Comprehension and Risk Perception of Fact Boxes-A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

(1) Background: Fact boxes present the benefits and harms of medical interventions in the form of tables. Some studies suggest that people with a lower level of education could profit more from graphic presentations. The objective of the study was to compare three different formats in fact boxes with regard to verbatim and gist knowledge in general and according to the educational background. (2) Methods: In May 2020, recruitment started for this randomized controlled trial. Participants were given one out of three presentation formats: natural frequencies, percentages, and graphic. We used Limesurvey® to assess comprehension/risk perception as the primary outcome. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used in addition to descriptive analyses. (3) Results: A total of 227 people took part in the study. Results of the groups were nearly identical in relation to the primary outcome verbatim knowledge, likewise in gist knowledge. However, participants with lower educational qualifications differed from participants with higher educational qualifications in terms of verbatim knowledge in the group percentages. (4) Conclusions: The results indicate that all three forms of presentation are suitable for conveying the content. Further research should take the individual preferences regarding the format into account.

A qualitative exploration of clinicians' strategies to communicate risks to patients in the complex reality of clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Risk communication, situated in the model of shared decision making (SDM), is an essential element in daily clinical practice. The scientific literature makes a number of generic recommendations. Yet the application of risk communication remains a challenge in patient-clinician encounters. How clinicians actually communicate risk during consultations is not well understood. We aimed to explore the risk communication strategies used by clinicians and extract narratives and visualizations of those strategies to help inform medical education.

METHODS

In this qualitative descriptive study, we interviewed fifteen purposely sampled clinicians from several medical disciplines, who were familiar with the concept of SDM. Deductive and inductive content analysis was used during an iterative data collection and analyses process.

RESULTS

Our study identified various strategies reported to be used by clinicians to address the complexities of risk communication such as dealing with uncertainty. These included verbal, numerical and visual risk communication and framing. Clinicians were familiar with recommended risk formats such as natural frequencies and population pictograms. However, it became clear that clinicians' expertise and communication goals also play an important role in the risk talk. Clinicians try to lay a foundation for balanced decision-making and to incorporate patient preferences while faced with several challenges such as the dilemma of raising awareness but triggering anxiety or fan fear in patients. Consequently, they also use communication goals such as influencing mindset and reassuring patients. Additionally, clinicians frequently have to account for the illusion of certainty in the risk talk.

CONCLUSION

Risk communication is a multi-faceted construct that cannot be dealt with in isolation from the clinical context. For future research we recommend considering a more practical framework within the clinical setting and to take a goal-directed approach into account when investigating and teaching the topic. The patient perspective should also be addressed in further research.

Effect of a Website That Presents Patients' Experiences on Self-Efficacy and Patient Competence of Colorectal Cancer Patients: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Patients often seek other patients’ experiences with the disease. The Internet provides a wide range of opportunities to share and learn about other people’s health and illness experiences via blogs or patient-initiated online discussion groups. There also exists a range of medical information devices that include experiential patient information. However, there are serious concerns about the use of such experiential information because narratives of others may be powerful and pervasive tools that may hinder informed decision making. The international research network DIPEx (Database of Individual Patients’ Experiences) aims to provide scientifically based online information on people’s experiences with health and illness to fulfill patients’ needs for experiential information, while ensuring that the presented information includes a wide variety of possible experiences.

Objective

The aim is to evaluate the colorectal cancer module of the German DIPEx website krankheitserfahrungen.de with regard to self-efficacy for coping with cancer and patient competence.

Methods

In 2015, a Web-based randomized controlled trial was conducted using a two-group between-subjects design and repeated measures. The study sample consisted of individuals who had been diagnosed with colorectal cancer within the past 3 years or who had metastasis or recurrent disease. Outcome measures included self-efficacy for coping with cancer and patient competence. Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group that had immediate access to the colorectal cancer module for 2 weeks or to a waiting list control group. Outcome criteria were measured at baseline before randomization and at 2 weeks and 6 weeks

Results

The study randomized 212 persons. On average, participants were 54 (SD 11.1) years old, 58.8% (124/211) were female, and 73.6% (156/212) had read or heard stories of other patients online before entering the study, thus excluding any influence of the colorectal cancer module on krankheitserfahrungen.de. No intervention effects were found at 2 and 6 weeks after baseline.

Conclusions

The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that the website studied may increase self-efficacy for coping with cancer or patient competencies such as self-regulation or managing emotional distress. Possible explanations may involve characteristics of the website itself, its use by participants, or methodological reasons. Future studies aimed at evaluating potential effects of websites providing patient experiences on the basis of methodological principles such as those of DIPEx might profit from extending the range of outcome measures, from including additional measures of website usage behavior and users’ motivation, and from expanding concepts, such as patient competency to include items that more directly reflect patients’ perceived effects of using such a website.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02157454; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02157454 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6syrvwXxi)

Self-criticism of physicians, patient participation and risk competence

Self-criticism of physicians and patient participation are the pillars of modern medical ethics and medical programmes. Patients expect risk minimisation from physicians, mostly without realising how much they could actively do themselves in this respect. But what about the willingness of German people to take risks, how high is it really at present? Direct empirical data are not available, but results from general empirical research show that people’s willingness to take risks is probably rather low. Post-heroic societies of welfare states are less likely to take risks than supposedly heroic ones. Therefore, the question whether it is responsible for medical experts to transfer even more responsibility to non-medical laypeople becomes increasingly important in a social context.