Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making 2001;21(6):459-67
Date
01/05/2002Pubmed ID
11760103DOI
10.1177/0272989X0102100604Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85047697559 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site) 220 CitationsAbstract
BACKGROUND: The communication of probabilistic outcomes is an essential aspect of shared medical decision making.
METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative study using focus groups to evaluate the response of women to various formats used in the communication of breast cancer risk.
FINDINGS: Graphic discrete frequency formats using highlighted human figures had greater salience than continuous probability formats using bar graphs. Potential biases in the estimation of risk magnitude were associated with the use of highlighted human figures versus bar graphs and the denominator size in graphics using highlighted human figures. The presentation of uncertainty associated with risk estimates caused some to loose trust in the information, whereas others were accepting of uncertainty in scientific data.
CONCLUSION: The qualitative studyidentified new constructs with regard to how patients process probabilistic information. Further research in the clinical setting is needed to provide a theoretical justification for the format used when presenting risk information to patients.
Author List
Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CAAuthor
Ann B. Nattinger MPH, MD Vice Dean, Associate Provost, Professor in the Medicine department at Medical College of WisconsinMESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
AdultAged
Breast Neoplasms
Communication
Decision Support Techniques
Female
Focus Groups
Humans
Middle Aged
Patient Participation
Probability
Risk Factors
