• J Gen Intern Med · Dec 2021

    Imprecision and Preferences in Interpretation of Verbal Probabilities in Health: a Systematic Review.

    • Katerina Andreadis, Ethan Chan, Minha Park, Natalie C Benda, Mohit M Sharma, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Elizabeth Sigworth, Qingxia Chen, Andrew Liu, Lisa Grossman Liu, Marianne Sharko, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, and Jessica S Ancker.
    • Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
    • J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Dec 1; 36 (12): 3820-3829.

    IntroductionMany health providers and communicators who are concerned that patients will not understand numbers instead use verbal probabilities (e.g., terms such as "rare" or "common") to convey the gist of a health message.ObjectiveTo assess patient interpretation of and preferences for verbal probability information in health contexts.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature published through September 2020. Original studies conducted in English with samples representative of lay populations were included if they assessed health-related information and elicited either (a) numerical estimates of verbal probability terms or (b) preferences for verbal vs. quantitative risk information.ResultsWe identified 33 original studies that referenced 145 verbal probability terms, 45 of which were included in at least two studies and 19 in three or more. Numerical interpretations of each verbal term were extremely variable. For example, average interpretations of the term "rare" ranged from 7 to 21%, and for "common," the range was 34 to 71%. In a subset of 9 studies, lay estimates of verbal probability terms were far higher than the standard interpretations established by the European Commission for drug labels. In 10 of 12 samples where preferences were elicited, most participants preferred numerical information, alone or in combination with verbal labels.ConclusionNumerical interpretation of verbal probabilities is extremely variable and does not correspond well to the numerical probabilities established by expert panels. Most patients appear to prefer quantitative risk information, alone or in combination with verbal labels. Health professionals should be aware that avoiding numeric information to describe risks may not match patient preferences, and that patients interpret verbal risk terms in a highly variable way.© 2021. The Author(s).

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.