Literature DB >> 10520681

How should effectiveness of risk communication to aid patients' decisions be judged? A review of the literature.

A Edwards1, G Elwyn.   

Abstract

Risk-communication interventions are associated with benefits at both the individual and the public health level. However, the types of outcomes used to assess the effectiveness of risk-communication interventions vary greatly. This makes synthesis of the research in systematic review difficult, and limits both the implementation of advances in clinical practice and further research. This article reviews the outcomes used in risk-communication publications, particularly those addressing individual decisions about treatment. From the traditional cognitive and behavioral research outcomes of patient knowledge, risk perception, and compliance, the emphasis has shifted towards more affective outcomes, including satisfaction, assessment of the information provided and the decision-making process, and certainty about whether the best option has been chosen. These affective outcomes may be more specific and sensitive measures for risk-communication research. Further development and validation of measurement scales to address these issues is needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10520681     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900411

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  26 in total

Review 1.  Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences.

Authors:  A Edwards; G Elwyn
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

Review 2.  Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk.

Authors:  A Bowling; S Ebrahim
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

Review 3.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Silvana Unigwe; Glyn Elwyn; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

Review 4.  Re-conceptualizing risk in genetic counseling: implications for clinical practice.

Authors:  Jehannine C Austin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-01-30       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Four different types of client attitudes towards purchasing spectacles in optometric practice.

Authors:  Fiona Fylan; Elizabeth A Grunfeld; Andrew Turvey; Jacques Desallais
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Involving patients in primary care consultations: assessing preferences using discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Mirella F Longo; David R Cohen; Kerenza Hood; Adrian Edwards; Michael Robling; Glyn Elwyn; Ian T Russell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Patient-provider communication in cancer screening.

Authors:  Tung T Nguyen; Stephen J McPhee
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

9.  Improving the physician-patient cardiovascular risk dialogue to improve statin adherence.

Authors:  Linda Casebeer; Craig Huber; Nancy Bennett; Rachael Shillman; Maziar Abdolrasulnia; Gregory D Salinas; Sijian Zhang
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 2.497

10.  Research on patients' views in the evaluation and improvement of quality of care.

Authors:  M Wensing; G Elwyn
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.