Literature DB >> 11818343

Interpretation of and preference for probability expressions among Japanese patients and physicians.

Motoki Ohnishi1, Tsuguya Fukui, Kunihiko Matsui, Kenji Hira, Masaya Shinozuka, Hironori Ezaki, Junji Otaki, Wataru Kurokawa, Hiroshi Imura, Hiroshi Koyama, Takuro Shimbo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients and physicians often communicate using qualitative probability expressions that describe expected outcomes or risks of a medical intervention without knowing whether or not they share the same understanding.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to determine interpretations of qualitative probability expressions in clinical settings by Japanese patients and physicians as well as their assessments and preferences about physicians' use of such expressions.
METHODS: One hundred and sixty-eight consecutive patients aged 16 years or older, who attended a university hospital during a 2-week period in 1999, and 156 physicians recruited through the Japanese General Medicine Research Network participated in this cross-sectional survey, using a self-administered questionnaire. Participants were asked to assign numerical interpretations as a percentage to 10 qualitative expressions of probability in two clinical situations related to prescribing a medicine for a cold and an anti-cancer drug. They were also asked which type of expression, qualitative or quantitative, they usually use when communicating probabilistic clinical information and which they prefer.
RESULTS: The estimates of probability expressions showed wide variations, especially among patients. Patients tended to assign lower and higher values to highly positive and negative probability expressions, respectively, than physicians. Clinical context also influenced the estimation: both groups tended to assign higher estimates in the anti-cancer drug situation than in the cold treatment situation. Factor analysis revealed three psychologically meaningful factors in each situation. More patients than physicians (64.6% versus 50.3%) thought that physicians do not use numbers in routine practice. More than 20% of both patients and physicians considered that the actual use of qualitative terms by physicians is undesirable. Nevertheless, a sizable number of patients (41.4%) and physicians (15.2%) considered it preferable that physicians do not use numbers.
CONCLUSION: Since interpretation of qualitative expressions of probability in Japanese is subject to large interpersonal variability and differences between patients and physicians, as well as context dependence, the use of qualitative expressions alone might cause misunderstanding among the parties involved. However, the majority of patients prefer words to numbers at present. Therefore, physicians, at least in Japan, ought to provide patients with both numbers and words when critical decisions need to be communicated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11818343     DOI: 10.1093/fampra/19.1.7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Pract        ISSN: 0263-2136            Impact factor:   2.267


  9 in total

Review 1.  What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Burkell
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2004-04

2.  Surrogate decision makers' interpretation of prognostic information: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Lucas S Zier; Peter D Sottile; Seo Yeon Hong; Lisa A Weissfield; Douglas B White
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  How "should" we write guideline recommendations? Interpretation of deontic terminology in clinical practice guidelines: survey of the health services community.

Authors:  E A Lomotan; G Michel; Z Lin; R N Shiffman
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2010-08-10

4.  A framework for health numeracy: how patients use quantitative skills in health care.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Mary Ann Gilligan; Toni K King; Purushottam W Laud; B Alexendra Matthews; Joan M Neuner; Elisabeth Hayes
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug

5.  Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey.

Authors:  Yin Bun Cheung; Hwee Lin Wee; Julian Thumboo; Cynthia Goh; Ricardo Pietrobon; Han Chong Toh; Yu Fen Yong; Say Beng Tan
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.796

6.  Hedging their mets: the use of uncertainty terms in clinical documents and its potential implications when sharing the documents with patients.

Authors:  David A Hanauer; Yang Liu; Qiaozhu Mei; Frank J Manion; Ulysses J Balis; Kai Zheng
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2012-11-03

7.  The language of prognostication in intensive care units.

Authors:  Douglas B White; Ruth A Engelberg; Marjorie D Wenrich; Bernard Lo; J Randall Curtis
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Reporting, presentation and wording of recommendations in clinical practice guideline for gout: a systematic analysis.

Authors:  Nan Yang; Yang Yu; Anqi Zhang; Janne Estill; Xiaoqin Wang; Mingfu Zheng; Qi Zhou; Jingyi Zhang; Xufei Luo; Changli Qian; Yifang Mao; Qi Wang; Yantao Yang; Yaolong Chen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  A systematic review of factors associated with side-effect expectations from medical interventions.

Authors:  Louise E Smith; Rebecca K Webster; G James Rubin
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 3.377

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.