Literature DB >> 2066829

Patients' interpretations of probability terms.

D J Mazur1, D H Hickam.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVES: To assess the meaning ascribed by patients to qualitative expressions of probability commonly used in medical care and to determine patient preferences for obtaining information when communicating with their physicians about medical risk numerically and/or qualitatively.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of consecutive patients.
SETTING: A university-based Department of Veterans Affairs medical center. PARTICIPANTS: 133 patients sequentially seen in a general medicine clinic.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Subjects were given a randomly ordered list of 12 common terms, each a qualitative expression of probability. They were asked to indicate what they understood to be the numerical meaning of each word. The patients' probability estimates were found to comprise two groups of five terms each, with high intercorrelations among the probabilities assigned to the terms in each group. Mean probabilities assigned to terms in the first group all were greater than 60%, and mean probabilities assigned to terms in the second group all were below 50%. When asked whether they wanted chance information to be provided in numerical or qualitative terms, 32% reported that they wanted it only numerically; 35.3% wanted it only qualitatively; 21.8% wanted the information either way; and 8.3% wanted the information both ways.
CONCLUSIONS: The numerical meanings that patients ascribe to probability terms fall into identifiable patterns. While patients vary in the actual values they assign to terms, the relative meanings of terms show consistent trends.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2066829     DOI: 10.1007/BF02598968

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  9 in total

1.  Using mammography for cancer control: an unrealized potential.

Authors:  J Howard
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1987 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Why the goals of informed consent are not realized: treatise on informed consent for the primary care physician.

Authors:  D J Mazur
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1988 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  What do we mean by "usually"?

Authors:  J H Toogood
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1980-05-17       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Numbers are better than words. Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine.

Authors:  M A Nakao; S Axelrod
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  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

6.  Between never and always.

Authors:  R M Kenney
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1981-10-29       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability.

Authors:  A Kong; G O Barnett; F Mosteller; C Youtz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1986-09-18       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Personal risk factors. What do they mean?

Authors:  G R Newell; V G Vogel
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1988-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a study of elderly outpatients.

Authors:  R H Shmerling; S E Bedell; A Lilienfeld; T L Delbanco
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1988 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.128

  9 in total
  16 in total

1.  A randomized trial of two methods to disclose prognosis to surrogate decision makers in intensive care units.

Authors:  Susan J Lee Char; Leah R Evans; Grace L Malvar; Douglas B White
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  Interpretation of probability terms.

Authors:  W O Robertson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1992 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Ethical aspects of determining and communicating prognosis in critical care.

Authors:  James L Bernat
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.210

Review 4.  Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Denise M Lautenbach; Kurt D Christensen; Jeffrey A Sparks; Robert C Green
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 8.929

5.  Women's preferences for information and complication seriousness ratings related to elective medical procedures.

Authors:  P K Coleman; D C Reardon; M B Lee
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Numeracy and framing bias in epilepsy.

Authors:  Hyunmi Choi; John B Wong; Anil Mendiratta; Gary A Heiman; Marla J Hamberger
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 2.937

7.  Surrogate decision makers' interpretation of prognostic information: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Lucas S Zier; Peter D Sottile; Seo Yeon Hong; Lisa A Weissfield; Douglas B White
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-03-06       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  '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

9.  A framework for health numeracy: how patients use quantitative skills in health care.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Mary Ann Gilligan; Toni K King; Purushottam W Laud; B Alexendra Matthews; Joan M Neuner; Elisabeth Hayes
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug

Review 10.  Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice.

Authors:  Wendy Nelson; Valerie F Reyna; Angela Fagerlin; Isaac Lipkus; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2008-08-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.