» Articles » PMID: 24625237

Presenting Quantitative Information About Decision Outcomes: a Risk Communication Primer for Patient Decision Aid Developers

Abstract

Background: Making evidence-based decisions often requires comparison of two or more options. Research-based evidence may exist which quantifies how likely the outcomes are for each option. Understanding these numeric estimates improves patients' risk perception and leads to better informed decision making. This paper summarises current "best practices" in communication of evidence-based numeric outcomes for developers of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other health communication tools.

Method: An expert consensus group of fourteen researchers from North America, Europe, and Australasia identified eleven main issues in risk communication. Two experts for each issue wrote a "state of the art" summary of best evidence, drawing on the PtDA, health, psychological, and broader scientific literature. In addition, commonly used terms were defined and a set of guiding principles and key messages derived from the results.

Results: The eleven key components of risk communication were: 1) Presenting the chance an event will occur; 2) Presenting changes in numeric outcomes; 3) Outcome estimates for test and screening decisions; 4) Numeric estimates in context and with evaluative labels; 5) Conveying uncertainty; 6) Visual formats; 7) Tailoring estimates; 8) Formats for understanding outcomes over time; 9) Narrative methods for conveying the chance of an event; 10) Important skills for understanding numerical estimates; and 11) Interactive web-based formats. Guiding principles from the evidence summaries advise that risk communication formats should reflect the task required of the user, should always define a relevant reference class (i.e., denominator) over time, should aim to use a consistent format throughout documents, should avoid "1 in x" formats and variable denominators, consider the magnitude of numbers used and the possibility of format bias, and should take into account the numeracy and graph literacy of the audience.

Conclusion: A substantial and rapidly expanding evidence base exists for risk communication. Developers of tools to facilitate evidence-based decision making should apply these principles to improve the quality of risk communication in practice.

Citing Articles

Mammography screening: Eliciting the voices of informed citizens.

Jensen M, Hansen K, Siersma V, Brodersen J PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0317263.

PMID: 39787123 PMC: 11717236. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317263.


The Value of Clinical Prediction Models in General Practice: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Perspectives of People With Lived Experience of Depression and General Practitioners.

Moriarty A, Castleton J, McMillan D, Riley R, Snell K, Archer L Health Expect. 2024; 27(6):e70059.

PMID: 39696827 PMC: 11655671. DOI: 10.1111/hex.70059.


Perceived usability and acceptability of the My-Hip Fracture risk communication tool from the perspective of academic clinicians.

Hommel E, Flaherty J, Aguirre C, McIlwain A, Pappadis M, Wegier P PEC Innov. 2024; 5:100360.

PMID: 39691556 PMC: 11650269. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100360.


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.


Public perspective on potential treatment intervention harm in clinical trials-terminology and communication.

Phillips R, Bi D, Goulao B, Miller M, El-Askary M, Fagbemi O Trials. 2024; 25(1):573.

PMID: 39215336 PMC: 11365119. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08418-w.


References
1.
Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely E . Effective communication of risks to young adults: using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011; 17(3):270-87. DOI: 10.1037/a0023677. View

2.
Levin L, Goeree R, Levine M, Krahn M, Easty T, Brown A . Coverage with evidence development: the Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011; 27(2):159-68. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000018. View

3.
Ancker J, Chan C, Kukafka R . Interactive graphics for expressing health risks: development and qualitative evaluation. J Health Commun. 2009; 14(5):461-75. PMC: 4423614. DOI: 10.1080/10810730903032960. View

4.
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

5.
Peters E, Hess T, Vastfjall D, Auman C . Adult Age Differences in Dual Information Processes: Implications for the Role of Affective and Deliberative Processes in Older Adults' Decision Making. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 2(1):1-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00025.x. View