Helping Patients Decide: Ten Steps to Better Risk Communication

Overview

Journal J Natl Cancer Inst

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Oncology

Date 2011 Sep 21

PMID 21931068

Citations 238

Authors

Angela Fagerlin

Brian J Zikmund-Fisher

Peter A Ubel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

With increasing frequency, patients are being asked to make complex decisions about cancer screening, prevention, and treatment. These decisions are fraught with emotion and cognitive difficulty simultaneously. Many Americans have low numeracy skills making the cognitive demands even greater whenever, as is often the case, patients are presented with risk statistics and asked to make comparisons between the risks and benefits of multiple options and to make informed medical decisions. In this commentary, we highlight 10 methods that have been empirically shown to improve patients' understanding of risk and benefit information and/or their decision making. The methods range from presenting absolute risks using frequencies (rather than presenting relative risks) to using a risk format that clarifies how treatment changes risks from preexisting baseline levels to using plain language. We then provide recommendations for how health-care providers and health educators can best to communicate this complex medical information to patients, including using plain language, pictographs, and absolute risks instead of relative risks.

Citing Articles

Acceptability of artificial intelligence in breast screening: focus groups with the screening-eligible population in England.

Gatting L, Ahmed S, Meccheri P, Newlands R, Kehagia A, Waller J BMJ Public Health. 2025; 2(2):e000892.

PMID: 40018529 PMC: 11816108. DOI: 10.1136/bmjph-2024-000892.

Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests: State of the Art and Implications for Radiologists.

Kang S, Gulati R, Moise N, Hur C, Elkin E Radiology. 2025; 314(1):e233448.

PMID: 39807974 PMC: 11783158. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.233448.

How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.

Richter R, Jansen J, van der Kraan J, Abbaspoor W, Bongaerts I, Pouwels F Med Decis Making. 2024; 45(2):143-155.

PMID: 39673417 PMC: 11736975. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241302288.

Facilitators and Barriers to Integrating Patient-Generated Blood Pressure Data into Primary Care EHR Workflows.

Canfield S, Koopman R Appl Clin Inform. 2024; 15(5):942-951.

PMID: 39537189 PMC: 11560398. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1790554.

The Risk Information and Skin-cancer Education for Undergraduate Prevention (RISE-UP) Study: Protocol for a Trial of Personalized Sun Protection Interventions for Skin Cancer Prevention among Undergraduate Students.

Wu Y, Woodside L, Kaphingst K, Jensen J, Hamilton J, Kohlmann W Contemp Clin Trials. 2024; 147:107728.

PMID: 39491719 PMC: 11620905. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2024.107728.

References

Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard J, Mertz C . Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007; 64(2):169-90. DOI: 10.1177/10775587070640020301. View

Peters E, Hart P, Fraenkel L . Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2010; 31(3):432-6. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10391672. View

Gail M, Brinton L, Byar D, Corle D, Green S, Schairer C . Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989; 81(24):1879-86. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879. View

Ancker J, Kaufman D . Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007; 14(6):713-21. PMC: 2213486. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2464. View

Chao C, Studts J, Abell T, Hadley T, Roetzer L, Dineen S . Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(23):4299-305. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.06.025. View

Fagerlin A, Dillard A, Smith D, Zikmund-Fisher B, Pitsch R, McClure J . Women's interest in taking tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer prevention: response to a tailored decision aid. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011; 127(3):681-8. PMC: 3742062. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1450-1. View

Hawley S, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A . The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 73(3):448-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023. View

Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Giustetto G . Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994; 343(8907):1209-11. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92407-4. View

Lipkus I, Samsa G, Rimer B . General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21(1):37-44. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100105. View

10.

Lipkus I . Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27(5):696-713. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07307271. View

11.

Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P . "Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Med Decis Making. 2004; 24(2):142-8. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04263154. View

12.

Zikmund-Fisher B, Angott A, Ubel P . The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010; 129(1):79-87. PMC: 3574293. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1193-4. View

13.

Tait A, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A . The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010; 15(5):487-501. PMC: 2915576. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2010.492560. View

14.

Schapira M, Nattinger A, McHorney C . Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2002; 21(6):459-67. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100604. View

15.

Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P . What's time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Risk Anal. 2005; 25(3):589-95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00626.x. View

16.

Malenka D, Baron J, Johansen S, Wahrenberger J, Ross J . The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993; 8(10):543-8. DOI: 10.1007/BF02599636. View

17.

Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel P . Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?. Med Decis Making. 2005; 25(4):398-405. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05278931. View

18.

Ravdin P, Siminoff L, Davis G, Mercer M, Hewlett J, Gerson N . Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19(4):980-91. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.4.980. View

19.

Akl E, Oxman A, Herrin J, Vist G, Terrenato I, Sperati F . Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (3):CD006776. PMC: 6464912. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006776.pub2. View

20.

Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P . Mortality versus survival graphs: improving temporal consistency in perceptions of treatment effectiveness. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 66(1):100-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.013. View