Literature DB >> 1393896

Risk language preferred by mothers in considering a hypothetical new vaccine for their children.

T R Freeman1, M J Bass.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the type of risk language preferred by mothers considering the use of hypothetical new vaccine for their children and to compare their choice with what their physicians perceived they would prefer.
DESIGN: Mail survey.
SETTING: Thirteen family practices in southwestern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Women with at least one child between the ages of 6 months and 5 years and their physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferred risk language and physicians' predictions about patient preference.
RESULTS: Of the 226 women sent the questionnaire 208 (92%) responded. Of the 192 who indicated their risk language preference 118 (61%) chose a numeric statement. Of the 11 physicians who answered the question 8 (73%) predicted that their parents would prefer non-numeric statements. Although the women in the study were more likely to be married, were better educated and had higher family incomes than women of the same age in the Ontario population, risk language preference was not found to be related to any of those demographic characteristics.
CONCLUSION: Physicians must be prepared to outline the risks associated with vaccination in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1393896      PMCID: PMC1336288     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  9 in total

1.  Determinants of maternal tolerance of vaccine-related risks.

Authors:  T R Freeman; M J Bass
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.267

2.  Pertussis vaccine--an analysis of benefits, risks and costs.

Authors:  J P Koplan; S C Schoenbaum; M C Weinstein; D W Fraser
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1979-10-25       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Improving risk communication.

Authors:  R L Keeney; D von Winterfeldt
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 4.000

4.  Informed consent. A study of patient reaction.

Authors:  R J Alfidi
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1971-05-24       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Decision analysis and clinical judgment. A re-evaluation.

Authors:  P Politser
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  An appraisal of patients' reactions to "informed consent" for peroral endoscopy.

Authors:  G T Roling; L W Pressgrove; E B Keeffe; S B Raffin
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1977-11       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Mental models in risk assessment: informing people about drugs.

Authors:  H Jungermann; H Schütz; M Thüring
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 4.000

8.  Perception of teratogenic risk by pregnant women exposed to drugs and chemicals during the first trimester.

Authors:  G Koren; M Bologa; D Long; Y Feldman; N H Shear
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Information and participation preferences among cancer patients.

Authors:  B R Cassileth; R V Zupkis; K Sutton-Smith; V March
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1980-06       Impact factor: 25.391

  9 in total
  3 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

2.  What do parents learn by reading a DPT vaccine information form?

Authors:  R Gold; G L Bjornson
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis       Date:  1994-03

3.  Imprecision and Preferences in Interpretation of Verbal Probabilities in Health: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Katerina Andreadis; Ethan Chan; Minha Park; Natalie C Benda; Mohit M Sharma; Michelle Demetres; Diana Delgado; Elizabeth Sigworth; Qingxia Chen; Andrew Liu; Lisa Grossman Liu; Marianne Sharko; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Jessica S Ancker
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 5.128

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.