Literature DB >> 18602242

Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs.

Brian J Zikmund-Fisher1, Peter A Ubel, Dylan M Smith, Holly A Derry, Jennifer B McClure, Azadeh Stark, Rosemarie K Pitsch, Angela Fagerlin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To experimentally test whether using pictographs (image matrices), incremental risk formats, and varied risk denominators would influence perceptions and comprehension of side effect risks in an online decision aid about prophylactic use of tamoxifen to prevent primary breast cancers.
METHODS: We recruited 631 women with elevated breast cancer risk from two healthcare organizations. Participants saw tailored estimates of the risks of 5 side effects: endometrial cancer, blood clotting, cataracts, hormonal symptoms, and sexual problems. Presentation format was randomly varied in a three factor design: (A) risk information was displayed either in pictographs or numeric text; (B) presentations either reported total risks with and without tamoxifen or highlighted the incremental risk most relevant for decision making; and (C) risk estimates used 100 or 1000 person denominators. Primary outcome measures included risk perceptions and gist knowledge.
RESULTS: Incremental risk formats consistently lowered perceived risk of side effects but resulted in low knowledge when displayed by numeric text only. Adding pictographs, however, produced significantly higher comprehension levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Pictographs make risk statistics easier to interpret, reducing biases associated with incremental risk presentations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Including graphs in risk communications is essential to support an informed treatment decision-making process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18602242      PMCID: PMC2649664          DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  24 in total

Review 1.  The visual communication of risk.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; J G Hollands
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1999

Review 2.  Memory independence and memory interference in cognitive development.

Authors:  C J Brainerd; V F Reyna
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 3.  Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice.

Authors:  Michael J Barry
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-01-15       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Assessing values for health: numeracy matters.

Authors:  S Woloshin; L M Schwartz; M Moncur; S Gabriel; A N Tosteson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care.

Authors:  M M Schapira; A B Nattinger; C A McHorney
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Agreement between scales in the measurement of breast cancer risk perceptions.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Susan L Davids; Timothy L McAuliffe; Ann B Nattinger
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.000

8.  Patient education materials about the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: a critical review.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; David Rovner; Sue Stableford; Christophir Jentoft; John T Wei; Margaret Holmes-Rovner
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-05-04       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk of occurrence.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Todd R Roberts; Holly A Derry; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2008-03

Review 10.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

Authors:  A M O'Connor; D Stacey; V Entwistle; H Llewellyn-Thomas; D Rovner; M Holmes-Rovner; V Tait; J Tetroe; V Fiset; M Barry; J Jones
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2003
View more
  48 in total

1.  Patient decision making about organ quality in liver transplantation.

Authors:  Michael L Volk; Rachel S Tocco; Shawn J Pelletier; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Anna S F Lok
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.799

2.  Visual presentations of efficacy data in direct-to-consumer prescription drug print and television advertisements: A randomized study.

Authors:  Helen W Sullivan; Amie C O'Donoghue; Kathryn J Aikin; Dhuly Chowdhury; Rebecca R Moultrie; Douglas J Rupert
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-12-22

3.  Affective forecasting and medication decision making in breast-cancer prevention.

Authors:  Michael Hoerger; Laura D Scherer; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  SI RLTD: Risk Scores and Decision Making: The Anatomy of a Decision to Reduce Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Christine Holmberg; Mary Daly; Worta McCaskill-Stevens
Journal:  J Nurs Healthc Chronic Illn       Date:  2010-12

6.  An information-centric framework for designing patient-centered medical decision aids and risk communication.

Authors:  Lyndsey Franklin; Catherine Plaisant; Ben Shneiderman
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

7.  Testing whether decision aids introduce cognitive biases: results of a randomized trial.

Authors:  Peter A Ubel; Dylan M Smith; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Holly A Derry; Jennifer McClure; Azadeh Stark; Cheryl Wiese; Sarah Greene; Aleksandra Jankovic; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-12-09

Review 8.  Accepting risk in clinical research: is the gene therapy field becoming too risk-averse?

Authors:  Claire T Deakin; Ian E Alexander; Ian Kerridge
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 11.454

9.  Women's decisions regarding tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: responses to a tailored decision aid.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Vijayan Nair; Holly A Derry; Jennifer B McClure; Sarah Greene; Azadeh Stark; Sharon Hensley Alford; Paula Lantz; Daniel F Hayes; Cheryl Wiese; Sarah Claud Zweig; Rosemarie Pitsch; Aleksandra Jankovic; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: a cross-cultural comparison.

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Mirta Galesic
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.