Literature DB >> 11152840

Impact of presentation of research results on likelihood of prescribing medications to patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

C R Lacy1, J A Barone, D C Suh, P L Malini, M Bueno, D M Moylan, J B Kostis.   

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate willingness to prescribe medication based on identical data presented in different outcome terms to health professionals of varied discipline, geographic location, and level of training. Cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire was performed in 400 health professionals (physicians, pharmacists, physicians-in-training, and pharmacy students) in the United States and Europe. Data reflecting a clinical trial were presented in 6 outcome terms: 3 terms describing identical mortality (relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and number of patients needed to be treated to prevent 1 death); and 3 distractors (increased life expectancy, decreased hospitalization rate, and decreased cost). Willingness to prescribe and rank order of medication preference assuming willingness to prescribe were measured. The results of the study showed that willingness to prescribe and first choice preference were significantly greater when study results were presented as relative risk reduction than when identical mortality data were presented as absolute risk reduction or number of patients needed to be treated to avoid 1 death (p <0.001). Increase in life expectancy was the most influential distractor. In conclusion, this study, performed in the era of "evidence-based medicine," demonstrates that the method of reporting research trial results has significant influence on health professionals' willingness to prescribe. The high numerical value of relative risk reduction and the concrete and tangible quality of increased life expectancy exert greater influence on health professionals than other standard outcome terms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11152840     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)01317-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

1.  Number needed to treat (or harm).

Authors:  Martin R Tramèr; Bernhard Walder
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Prescribers' Knowledge and Skills for Interpreting Research Results: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Leila Kahwati; Dennis Carmody; Nancy Berkman; Helen W Sullivan; Kathryn J Aikin; Jessica DeFrank
Journal:  J Contin Educ Health Prof       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 3.  Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm.

Authors:  Enrique Bernal-Delgado; Elliot S Fisher
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-03-27       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 4.  What do we know about communicating risk? A brief review and suggestion for contextualising serious, but rare, risk, and the example of cox-2 selective and non-selective NSAIDs.

Authors:  R Andrew Moore; Sheena Derry; Henry J McQuay; John Paling
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 5.156

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.