Limits...
The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial.

Carling CL, Kristoffersen DT, Montori VM, Herrin J, Sch√ľnemann HJ, Treweek S, Akl EA, Oxman AD - PLoS Med. (2009)

Bottom Line: There were no significant differences among the absolute summary statistics in the association between RIS and participants' decisions whether to take statins.Natural frequencies may be the most suitable summary statistic for presenting treatment effects, based on self-reported preference, understanding of and satisfaction with the information, and confidence in the decision.ISRCTN85194921.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. cheryl.carling@kunnskapssenteret.no

ABSTRACT

Background: While different ways of presenting treatment effects can affect health care decisions, little is known about which presentations best help people make decisions consistent with their own values. We compared six summary statistics for communicating coronary heart disease (CHD) risk reduction with statins: relative risk reduction and five absolute summary measures-absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, event rates, tablets needed to take, and natural frequencies.

Methods and findings: We conducted a randomized trial to determine which presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. We recruited adult volunteers who participated through an interactive Web site. Participants rated the relative importance of outcomes using visual analogue scales (VAS). We then randomized participants to one of the six summary statistics and asked them to choose whether to take statins based on this information. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS scores for the downsides of taking statins from the VAS score for CHD. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 2,978 participants completed the study. Relative risk reduction resulted in a 21% higher probability of choosing to take statins over all values of RIS compared to the absolute summary statistics. This corresponds to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5; i.e., for every five participants shown the relative risk reduction one additional participant chose to take statins, compared to the other summary statistics. There were no significant differences among the absolute summary statistics in the association between RIS and participants' decisions whether to take statins. Natural frequencies were best understood (86% reported they understood them well or very well), and participants were most satisfied with this information.

Conclusions: Presenting the benefits of taking statins as a relative risk reduction increases the likelihood of people accepting treatment compared to presenting absolute summary statistics, independent of the relative importance they attach to the consequences. Natural frequencies may be the most suitable summary statistic for presenting treatment effects, based on self-reported preference, understanding of and satisfaction with the information, and confidence in the decision.

Clinical trials registration: ISRCTN85194921.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Numeracy assessment.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2724738&req=5

pmed-1000134-g004: Numeracy assessment.

Mentions: After making this decision, participants reported, using a 5-point scale where 5 was the highest rating, on their confidence in their decision and understanding of and satisfaction with the information. Participants then completed a numeracy assessment (Figure 4), a salience questionnaire (to measure how relevant or important the hypothetical scenario was likely to be to the participants) (Figure 5), and reported sociodemographic data. Then, they reviewed all six summary statistics and were asked which one they preferred.


The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial.

Carling CL, Kristoffersen DT, Montori VM, Herrin J, Sch√ľnemann HJ, Treweek S, Akl EA, Oxman AD - PLoS Med. (2009)

Numeracy assessment.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2724738&req=5

pmed-1000134-g004: Numeracy assessment.
Mentions: After making this decision, participants reported, using a 5-point scale where 5 was the highest rating, on their confidence in their decision and understanding of and satisfaction with the information. Participants then completed a numeracy assessment (Figure 4), a salience questionnaire (to measure how relevant or important the hypothetical scenario was likely to be to the participants) (Figure 5), and reported sociodemographic data. Then, they reviewed all six summary statistics and were asked which one they preferred.

Bottom Line: There were no significant differences among the absolute summary statistics in the association between RIS and participants' decisions whether to take statins.Natural frequencies may be the most suitable summary statistic for presenting treatment effects, based on self-reported preference, understanding of and satisfaction with the information, and confidence in the decision.ISRCTN85194921.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. cheryl.carling@kunnskapssenteret.no

ABSTRACT

Background: While different ways of presenting treatment effects can affect health care decisions, little is known about which presentations best help people make decisions consistent with their own values. We compared six summary statistics for communicating coronary heart disease (CHD) risk reduction with statins: relative risk reduction and five absolute summary measures-absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, event rates, tablets needed to take, and natural frequencies.

Methods and findings: We conducted a randomized trial to determine which presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. We recruited adult volunteers who participated through an interactive Web site. Participants rated the relative importance of outcomes using visual analogue scales (VAS). We then randomized participants to one of the six summary statistics and asked them to choose whether to take statins based on this information. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS scores for the downsides of taking statins from the VAS score for CHD. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 2,978 participants completed the study. Relative risk reduction resulted in a 21% higher probability of choosing to take statins over all values of RIS compared to the absolute summary statistics. This corresponds to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5; i.e., for every five participants shown the relative risk reduction one additional participant chose to take statins, compared to the other summary statistics. There were no significant differences among the absolute summary statistics in the association between RIS and participants' decisions whether to take statins. Natural frequencies were best understood (86% reported they understood them well or very well), and participants were most satisfied with this information.

Conclusions: Presenting the benefits of taking statins as a relative risk reduction increases the likelihood of people accepting treatment compared to presenting absolute summary statistics, independent of the relative importance they attach to the consequences. Natural frequencies may be the most suitable summary statistic for presenting treatment effects, based on self-reported preference, understanding of and satisfaction with the information, and confidence in the decision.

Clinical trials registration: ISRCTN85194921.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus