Literature DB >> 22955699

The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication.

Brian J Zikmund-Fisher1.   

Abstract

While patients often receive risk information, exactly what constitutes being "informed" about health risks is often unclear. Patients have specific needs, such as avoiding being surprised by a possible outcome and making complex risk trade-off decisions. Yet all risk information is not equally informative for those needs. In this article, I present a taxonomy of seven risk concepts that vary in their inherent precision and evaluability. Congruent with the "less is more" concept, I argue that risk communications should use formats that are tailored to message recipients' specific informational needs. Simpler formats can be used when patients only need to order risks, while more complex numerical probability statements will be necessary when patients need to assess differences in risk magnitude and put those differences into meaningful context. Selecting need-congruent formats when designing communications about risks to patients is a novel approach that may better support patients' health care decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22955699     DOI: 10.1177/1077558712458541

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care Res Rev        ISSN: 1077-5587            Impact factor:   3.929


  41 in total

1.  Effects of personalized colorectal cancer risk information on laypersons' interest in colorectal cancer screening: The importance of individual differences.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Christine W Duarte; Susannah Daggett; Andrea Siewers; Bill Killam; Kahsi A Smith; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-07-19

2.  Family history in primary care pediatrics.

Authors:  Beth A Tarini; Joseph D McInerney
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  Psychology: Good and bad news on the adolescent brain.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  Risk calculators-methods, development, implementation, and validation.

Authors:  Ulrich Mansmann; Anna Rieger; Brigitte Strahwald; Alexander Crispin
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-04-23       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test results: promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse psychological and behavioral response.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Hayden Bosworth
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2014-06-21

Review 6.  Decision making and cancer.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2015 Feb-Mar

7.  My Lived Experiences Are More Important Than Your Probabilities: The Role of Individualized Risk Estimates for Decision Making about Participation in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR).

Authors:  Christine Holmberg; Erika A Waters; Katie Whitehouse; Mary Daly; Worta McCaskill-Stevens
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Don't know responses to cognitive and affective risk perception measures: Exploring prevalence and socio-demographic moderators.

Authors:  Eva Janssen; Philippe Verduyn; Erika A Waters
Journal:  Br J Health Psychol       Date:  2018-02-02

9.  Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  S B Haga; W T Barry; R Mills; L Svetkey; S Suchindran; H F Willard; G S Ginsburg
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why.

Authors:  Consuelo H Wilkins; Brandy M Mapes; Rebecca N Jerome; Victoria Villalta-Gil; Jill M Pulley; Paul A Harris
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 6.301

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.