Literature DB >> 19697253

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

Sean Young1, Daniel M Oppenheimer.   

Abstract

Past research suggests that semantic and numerical medical risk descriptors may lead to miscommunication and misinterpretation of risk. However, little research has been conducted on systematic features of this bias, and the resulting potential risks to people contemplating or receiving treatment. Three studies explore the influence of verbal versus numerical medical risk descriptions. In Study 1a, San Francisco Bay area residents (N = 59) were presented with semantic descriptors for low-likelihood events and reported their perceived quantitative risk for the events. In Study 1b, undergraduates (N = 29) were presented with semantic versus numerical information about side effects for a prescribed medication and reported their perceived risk and adherence intentions. In Study 1c, San Francisco Bay area residents (N = 125) were presented with semantic versus numerical information about their risk for a disease and reported their perceived risk and intention to adhere to a prescribed treatment. The results of the first study suggest that people systematically overestimate the likelihood of low probability events described in semantic terms such as "low risk" or "people may occasionally experience." The results of the second and third experiment suggest that presenting semantic information about the risks of engaging in a new behavior makes people less likely to engage in that behavior, whereas presenting semantic information about the risks of not engaging in a new behavior makes people more likely to engage in the behavior. The decision to present semantic versus probabilistic information is tantamount to a decision about whether to encourage risk acceptance versus risk avoidance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19697253      PMCID: PMC2956070          DOI: 10.1080/13548500902890103

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Health Med        ISSN: 1354-8506            Impact factor:   2.423


  19 in total

1.  The interpretation of "likely" depends on the context, but "70%" is 70%--right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty.

Authors:  P D Windschitl; E U Weber
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Odds ratio, relative risk, absolute risk reduction, and the number needed to treat--which of these should we use?

Authors:  Edna Schechtman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Flexible rather than standardised approaches to communicating risks in health care.

Authors:  A Edwards
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-06

Review 4.  What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials.

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

5.  Context changes choices: a prospective study of the effects of hospitalization on life-sustaining treatment preferences.

Authors:  Peter H Ditto; Jill A Jacobson; William D Smucker; Joseph H Danks; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Women's understanding of a "normal smear test result": experimental questionnaire based study.

Authors:  T M Marteau; V Senior; P Sasieni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-03-03

Review 7.  Direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to consumers.

Authors:  Alan Lyles
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2001-10-25       Impact factor: 21.981

Review 8.  Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes.

Authors:  A Edwards; G Elwyn; J Covey; E Matthews; R Pill
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2001 Jan-Mar

9.  Expressions of probability: words and numbers.

Authors:  G D Bryant; G R Norman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1980-02-14       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Communicating evidence for participatory decision making.

Authors:  Ronald M Epstein; Brian S Alper; Timothy E Quill
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  Cardiovascular risk.

Authors:  Rupert A Payne
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; P Sol Hart; Martin Tusler; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  University Students' Risk Perception, Protective Measures, and General Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkey.

Authors:  Sergul Duygulu; Emine Kuruca-Ozdemir; Yildiz Erdat; Deniz Kocoglu-Tanyer
Journal:  Disaster Med Public Health Prep       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 5.556

5.  Communicating risk of medication side-effects: role of communication format on risk perception.

Authors:  Ruta Sawant; Sujit Sansgiry
Journal:  Pharm Pract (Granada)       Date:  2018-06-27

6.  How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats.

Authors:  Yasmina Okan; Samuel G Smith; Wändi Bruine de Bruin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.