Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Presenting Numeric Information with Percentages and Descriptive Risk Labels: A Randomized Trial.
Previous research demonstrated that providing (v. not providing) numeric information about the adverse effects (AEs) of medications increased comprehension and willingness to use medication but left open the question about which numeric format is best. The objective was to determine which of 4 tested formats (percentage, frequency, percentage + risk label, frequency + risk label) maximizes comprehension and willingness to use medication across age and numeracy levels. ⋯ Providing numeric AE-likelihood information in a percentage format with risk labels is likely to increase risk comprehension and willingness to use a medication compared with other numeric formats.
-
Efficiency in scale design reduces respondent burden. A brief but reliable measure of numeracy may provide a useful research tool eligible for integration into large epidemiological studies or clinical trials. Our goal was to validate a 3-item version of the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS-3). ⋯ The SNS-3 is sufficiently reliable and valid to be used as a measure of subjective numeracy.
-
Conscious and unconscious biases can influence how people interpret new information and make decisions. Current standards for creating decision aids, however, do not address this issue. ⋯ Identifying the options in patient decision aids can influence patient preferences and change how they interpret comparative outcome data.
-
Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
Informed Decision Making: Assessment of the Quality of Physician Communication about Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment.
Little is known about how physicians present diagnosis and treatment planning in routine practice in preference-sensitive treatment decisions. We evaluated completeness and quality of informed decision making in localized prostate cancer post biopsy encounters. ⋯ Physicians informed patients of options and risks and benefits, but infrequently engaged patients in core shared decision-making processes. Despite patients having received DAs, physicians rarely provided an opportunity for preference-driven decision making. More attention to the underused patient decision-making and engagement elements could result in improved shared decision making.