Importance: Practice guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in treatment decisions and explain atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk but do not describe how to communicate this risk most effectively. Objective: To determine how the ASCVD risk time horizon, outcome, and presentation format influence risk perceptions and treatment preferences. Design, Setting, and Participants: From May 27, 2015, through November 12, 2015, participants from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry at 140 US cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices were presented 3 independent scenarios (representing the same hypothetical patient) and asked to rate their perceived risk and willingness to take medication to lower risk in light of (1) a 15% 10-year ASCVD event risk, (2) a 4% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) death risk, and (3) a 50% lifetime ASCVD event risk. Exposures: Participants were randomized to receive risk estimates using numbers only, a bar graph, or a face pictogram. Results: Of 3566 eligible participants, 2708 (76.9%) responded (median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 61-76 years]; 280 [10.3%] African American; 1491 men [55.1%]). When shown the lifetime ASCVD risk, respondents were more likely to consider the risk "high to very high" than when presented the 10-year ASCVD risk or the CVD death risk (70.1% vs 31.4% vs 25.7%, respectively; both P < .001). Treatment willingness was also the highest for lifetime ASCVD risk (77.9% very willing) followed by 10-year ASCVD risk (68.1%) and 10-year CVD death risk (63.1%; both P < .001). Compared with participants who were shown a bar graph or no graphic, those who were shown the risk information with a pictogram had the lowest perception of disease severity and the lowest willingness to consider therapy. These findings were robust across demographic and socioeconomic subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: The format, time horizon, and outcome used for risk estimation influence patient perceptions and should be considered when designing risk communication tools. When shown lifetime risk estimates, patients had higher risk perception and willingness for therapy than when shown 10-year estimates. Pictogram risk displays may decrease risk perception and consideration for treatment.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Practice guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in treatment decisions and explain atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk but do not describe how to communicate this risk most effectively. Objective: To determine how the ASCVD risk time horizon, outcome, and presentation format influence risk perceptions and treatment preferences. Design, Setting, and Participants: From May 27, 2015, through November 12, 2015, participants from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry at 140 US cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices were presented 3 independent scenarios (representing the same hypothetical patient) and asked to rate their perceived risk and willingness to take medication to lower risk in light of (1) a 15% 10-year ASCVD event risk, (2) a 4% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) death risk, and (3) a 50% lifetime ASCVD event risk. Exposures: Participants were randomized to receive risk estimates using numbers only, a bar graph, or a face pictogram. Results: Of 3566 eligible participants, 2708 (76.9%) responded (median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 61-76 years]; 280 [10.3%] African American; 1491 men [55.1%]). When shown the lifetime ASCVD risk, respondents were more likely to consider the risk "high to very high" than when presented the 10-year ASCVD risk or the CVD death risk (70.1% vs 31.4% vs 25.7%, respectively; both P < .001). Treatment willingness was also the highest for lifetime ASCVD risk (77.9% very willing) followed by 10-year ASCVD risk (68.1%) and 10-year CVD death risk (63.1%; both P < .001). Compared with participants who were shown a bar graph or no graphic, those who were shown the risk information with a pictogram had the lowest perception of disease severity and the lowest willingness to consider therapy. These findings were robust across demographic and socioeconomic subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: The format, time horizon, and outcome used for risk estimation influence patient perceptions and should be considered when designing risk communication tools. When shown lifetime risk estimates, patients had higher risk perception and willingness for therapy than when shown 10-year estimates. Pictogram risk displays may decrease risk perception and consideration for treatment.
Authors: Daniella A Zipkin; Craig A Umscheid; Nancy L Keating; Elizabeth Allen; KoKo Aung; Rebecca Beyth; Scott Kaatz; Devin M Mann; Jeremy B Sussman; Deborah Korenstein; Connie Schardt; Avishek Nagi; Richard Sloane; David A Feldstein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paul K Whelton; Robert M Carey; Wilbert S Aronow; Donald E Casey; Karen J Collins; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Sondra M DePalma; Samuel Gidding; Kenneth A Jamerson; Daniel W Jones; Eric J MacLaughlin; Paul Muntner; Bruce Ovbiagele; Sidney C Smith; Crystal C Spencer; Randall S Stafford; Sandra J Taler; Randal J Thomas; Kim A Williams; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kunal N Karmali; Stephen D Persell; Pablo Perel; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Mark A Berendsen; Mark D Huffman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: Marije S Koelewijn-van Loon; Trudy van der Weijden; Gaby Ronda; Ben van Steenkiste; Bjorn Winkens; Glyn Elwyn; Richard Grol Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-11-26 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Felicity Goodyear-Smith; Bruce Arroll; Lydia Chan; Rod Jackson; Sue Wells; Timothy Kenealy Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Aleksandra Jankovic; Holly A Derry; Dylan M Smith Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Ann Marie Navar; Tracy Y Wang; Anne C Goldberg; Jennifer G Robinson; Veronique L Roger; Peter F Wilson; Salim S Virani; Joesph Elassal; L Veronica Lee; Laura E Webb; Eric Peterson Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Cesar I Fernandez-Lazaro; Carmen Sayon-Orea; Estefania Toledo; Conchi Moreno-Iribas; María J Guembe Journal: BMC Med Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Aparna Sajja; Hsin-Fang Li; Kateri J Spinelli; Amir Ali; Salim S Virani; Seth S Martin; Ty J Gluckman Journal: Am J Prev Cardiol Date: 2021-04-27
Authors: Laila Staerk; Sarah R Preis; Honghuang Lin; Juan P Casas; Kathryn Lunetta; Lu-Chen Weng; Christopher D Anderson; Patrick T Ellinor; Steven A Lubitz; Emelia J Benjamin; Ludovic Trinquart Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-03-31
Authors: Ann Marie Navar; Tracy Y Wang; Shuang Li; Xiaojuan Mi; Zhuokai Li; Jennifer G Robinson; Salim S Virani; Eric D Peterson Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2021-01-13
Authors: Derjung M Tarn; Maureen Barrientos; Mark J Pletcher; Keith Cox; Jon Turner; Alicia Fernandez; Janice B Schwartz Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2021 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Neal W Dickert; Andrea R Mitchell; Grace E Venechuk; Daniel D Matlock; Miranda A Moore; Alanna A Morris; Kenneth J Pierce; Candace D Speight; Larry A Allen Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-12-11
Authors: Sarah T Ahmed; Julia M Akeroyd; Dhruv Mahtta; Richard Street; Jason Slagle; Ann Marie Navar; Neil J Stone; Christie M Ballantyne; Laura A Petersen; Salim S Virani Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 5.501