Verbal Probability Terms for Communicating Clinical Risk - a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Ulster Med J

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 May 6

PMID 38707974

Authors

M Jawad Hashim

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Verbal probability expressions such as 'likely' and 'possible' are commonly used to communicate uncertainty in diagnosis, treatment effectiveness as well as the risk of adverse events. Probability terms that are interpreted consistently can be used to standardize risk communication. A systematic review was conducted. Research studies that evaluated numeric meanings of probability terms were reviewed. Terms with consistent numeric interpretation across studies were selected and were used to construct a Visual Risk Scale. Five probability terms showed reliable interpretation by laypersons and healthcare professionals in empirical studies. 'Very Likely' was interpreted as 90% chance (range 80 to 95%); 'Likely/Probable,' 70% (60 to 80%); 'Possible,' 40% (30 to 60%); 'Unlikely,' 20% (10 to 30%); and 'Very Unlikely' with 10% chance (5% to 15%). The corresponding frequency terms were: Very Frequently, Frequently, Often, Infrequently, and Rarely, respectively. Probability terms should be presented with their corresponding numeric ranges during discussions with patients. Numeric values should be presented as X-in-100 natural frequency statements, even for low values; and not as percentages, X-in-1000, X-in-Y, odds, fractions, 1-in-X, or as number needed to treat (NNT). A Visual Risk Scale was developed for use in clinical shared decision making.

References

Gregson C, Armstrong D, Bowden J, Cooper C, Edwards J, Gittoes N . UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos. 2022; 17(1):58. PMC: 8979902. DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01061-5. View

Knapp P, Raynor D, Berry D . Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004; 13(3):176-80. PMC: 1743828. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.13.3.176. View

Wiles M, Duffy A, Neill K . The numerical translation of verbal probability expressions by patients and clinicians in the context of peri-operative risk communication. Anaesthesia. 2020; 75 Suppl 1:e39-e45. DOI: 10.1111/anae.14871. View

Karelitz T, Budescu D . You say "probable" and I say "likely": improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2004; 10(1):25-41. DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.10.1.25. View

Zipkin D, Umscheid C, Keating N, Allen E, Aung K, Beyth R . Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161(4):270-80. DOI: 10.7326/M14-0295. View

Reagan R, Mosteller F, Youtz C . Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. J Appl Psychol. 1989; 74(3):433-42. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.433. View

Leonard C, Toner J . The Physician's Duty to Warn Their Patients About the Risks Associated with Medical Intervention: A Review and Discussion. Ulster Med J. 2019; 88(1):1-3. PMC: 6342032. View

Longman T, Turner R, King M, McCaffery K . The effects of communicating uncertainty in quantitative health risk estimates. Patient Educ Couns. 2012; 89(2):252-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.07.010. View

Hashim M . Patient-Centered Communication: Basic Skills. Am Fam Physician. 2017; 95(1):29-34. View

10.

Anderson H, Moore J, Millar B . Comparison of innovative communication approaches in nutrition to promote and improve health literacy. Ulster Med J. 2022; 91(2):85-91. PMC: 9200103. View

11.

Foppa M, de Araujo B, Macari A, Reichert R, Goldim J . Limitations in the use of qualitative terms to inform diagnoses. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171(14):1291-2. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.307. View

12.

Zikmund-Fisher B . Continued use of 1-in-X Risk communications is a systemic problem. Med Decis Making. 2013; 34(4):412-3. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13516198. View

13.

Hanauer D, Liu Y, Mei Q, Manion F, Balis U, Zheng K . Hedging their mets: the use of uncertainty terms in clinical documents and its potential implications when sharing the documents with patients. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2013; 2012:321-30. PMC: 3540426. View

14.

Kong A, Barnett G, Mosteller F, Youtz C . How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med. 1986; 315(12):740-4. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198609183151206. View

15.

Goodyear-Smith F, Kenealy T, Wells S, Arroll B, Horsburgh M . Patients' preferences for ways to communicate benefits of cardiovascular medication. Ann Fam Med. 2011; 9(2):121-7. PMC: 3056859. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1193. View

16.

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

17.

Bell N, Dickinson J, Grad R, Singh H, Kasperavicius D, Thombs B . Understanding and communicating risk: Measures of outcome and the magnitude of benefits and harms. Can Fam Physician. 2018; 64(3):181-185. PMC: 5851390. View

18.

Woloshin K, Ruffin 4th M, Gorenflo D . Patients' interpretation of qualitative probability statements. Arch Fam Med. 1994; 3(11):961-6. DOI: 10.1001/archfami.3.11.961. View

19.

Woloshin S, Schwartz L . Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(2):87-96. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00004. View

20.

Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M . Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 84(2):245-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.027. View