Literature DB >> 19209567

Statistical illiteracy undermines informed shared decision making.

Wolfgang Gaissmaier1, Gerd Gigerenzer.   

Abstract

Shared decision making relies on the exchange of information between the physician and the patient and the involvement of both patient and physician in making the decision. Informed shared decision making thus requires that patients and doctors understand the benefits and harms of different treatment options. This, however, is severely undermined by what we call collective statistical illiteracy. Both patients and physicians have difficulties to understand the meaning of numbers so that an effective risk communication cannot take place. Risk communication based on misunderstandings, however, renders the "informed" in informed shared decision making obsolete. We show that the problem of statistical illiteracy can largely be solved by changing the representation of statistical information. Insight can be achieved by communicating risks in absolute, not relative terms; by using a frequentist formulation, which makes the reference class clear instead of communicating single event probabilities; and by communicating natural frequencies instead of conditional probabilities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19209567     DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2008.08.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes        ISSN: 1865-9217


  24 in total

1.  Why do we pay for information that we won't use? A cognitive-based explanation for genetic information seeking.

Authors:  Alessandra Gorini; Gabriella Pravettoni
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Communicating risk using absolute risk reduction or prolongation of life formats: cluster-randomised trial in general practice.

Authors:  Charlotte Gry Harmsen; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Pia Veldt Larsen; Jørgen Nexøe; Henrik Støvring; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jesper Bo Nielsen; Adrian Edwards; Dorte Ejg Jarbøl
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Benefit-Risk or Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Sebastian Heidenreich; Andrea Phillips-Beyer; Bruno Flamion; Melissa Ross; Jaein Seo; Kevin Marsh
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4.  [Choosing wisely recommendations in hematology and oncology].

Authors:  S W Krause; A Neubauer
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 0.743

5.  Shared Decision Making and the Use of Decision Aids.

Authors:  Martin Härter; Angela Buchholz; Jennifer Nicolai; Katrin Reuter; Fely Komarahadi; Levente Kriston; Birgit Kallinowski; Wolfgang Eich; Christiane Bieber
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-10-02       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 6.  Whose future is it? Ethical family decision making about daughters' treatment in the oncofertility context.

Authors:  Kathleen M Galvin; Marla L Clayman
Journal:  Cancer Treat Res       Date:  2010

7.  The role of risk communication in the care of osteoporosis.

Authors:  E Michael Lewiecki
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.096

8.  The Inability to Calculate Predictive Values: an Old Problem that Has Not Gone Away.

Authors:  Steven D Stovitz
Journal:  Med Sci Educ       Date:  2020-04-08

Review 9.  mHealth for diabetes support: a systematic review of apps available on the Italian market.

Authors:  Maria Grazia Rossi; Sarah Bigi
Journal:  Mhealth       Date:  2017-05-04

10.  Training of patient and consumer representatives in the basic competencies of evidence-based medicine: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Bettina Berger; Anke Steckelberg; Gabriele Meyer; Jürgen Kasper; Ingrid Mühlhauser
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.