Literature DB >> 1766330

Verbal expressions of probability in informed consent litigation.

J F Merz1, M J Druzdzel, D J Mazur.   

Abstract

Informed consent litigation provides a forum in which probabilistic evidence is elicited from physicians as parties or as expert witnesses. The authors reviewed over 450 medical informed consent opinions reported by both trial and appellate courts in all 50 states over 40 years to determine 1) the extent to which verbal expressions of probability were used by testifying physicians to characterize the risks of medical procedures; 2) when such expressions were used, whether consistent numeric interpretations of the terms were being applied by the physicians; 3) whether the choice of expression was influenced by the severity of the consequences associated with the particular risk; and 4) whether the use of such terms was correlated with trial outcomes, inasmuch as the duty to disclose a risk is said to increase with the magnitude of the risk and probability is one measure of such magnitude. It was found that subjective verbal expressions of probability are used in the litigation setting, and that such expressions represent broad ranges of numeric probabilities. There was some correlation between the expression and the represented numeric probabilities. In general, expressions such as "extremely low" and "low" corresponded to probabilities lower than those represented by terms such as "high" and "very high." Further, verbal expressions appeared to be influenced by the severity of the consequences associated with the risks, but whether this increases or decreases the ambiguity of verbal expressions in the communication process warrants further research. The authors suggest a syntax of verbal expressions of probability as a means to reduce the numeric ambiguity of these terms.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1766330     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9101100405

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


  10 in total

1.  Strategies to help patients understand risks.

Authors:  John Paling
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

2.  Comprehension of the description of side effects in drug information leaflets: a survey of doctors, pharmacists and lawyers.

Authors:  Andreas Ziegler; Anka Hadlak; Steffi Mehlbeer; Inke R König
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  The use of multimedia in the informed consent process.

Authors:  H B Jimison; P P Sher; R Appleyard; Y LeVernois
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1998 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  'I'll do what they did": social norm information and cancer treatment decisions.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Paul D Windschitl; Nicole Exe; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-03-01

5.  Verbal Descriptions of the Probability of Treatment Complications Lead to High Variability in Risk Perceptions: A Survey Study.

Authors:  Joshua E Rosen; Nidhi Agrawal; David R Flum; Joshua M Liao
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 13.787

6.  Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions.

Authors:  Sean Young; Daniel M Oppenheimer
Journal:  Psychol Health Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.423

7.  How age, outcome severity, and scale influence general medicine clinic patients' interpretations of verbal probability terms.

Authors:  D J Mazur; J F Merz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Helping journalists get it right: a physicians's guide to improving health care reporting.

Authors:  Karen Stamm; John W Williams; Polly Hitchcock Noël; Rita Rubin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Verbal probabilities: Very likely to be somewhat more confusing than numbers.

Authors:  Bonnie C Wintle; Hannah Fraser; Ben C Wills; Ann E Nicholson; Fiona Fidler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Medicine in words and numbers: a cross-sectional survey comparing probability assessment scales.

Authors:  Cilia L M Witteman; Silja Renooij; Pieter Koele
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 2.796

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.