IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i3p290-297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effectiveness of One-to-one Risk-communication Interventions in Health Care

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian Edwards
  • Kerenza Hood
  • Elaine Matthews
  • Daphne Russell
  • Ian Russell
  • Jacqueline Barker
  • Michael Bloor
  • Philip Burnard
  • Judith Covey
  • Roisin Pill
  • Clare Wilkinson
  • Nigel Stott

Abstract

Objectives. To assess whether risk-communication interventions are associated with changes in patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, and to identify aspects of these interventions that modify these effects. Design. Systematic review. Data sources. 96 studies from the period 1985-1996 retrieved by electronic searching of eight databases, hand searching of four journals, contacting key authors, and reference list searching. Main outcome measures. The effect size of the principal outcome was identified from each study. Outcomes measuring behavioral change were preferred; if these were not available, knowledge, anxiety, or risk perceptions were used, according to the focus of the study. Data were available to calculate the principal effect sizes for 82 of the studies. Analysis. Meta-regression. Results. The methodologic qualities of the studies varied. Nevertheless, risk-communication interventions generally had positive (beneficial) effects. Interventions addressing treatment choices were associated with larger effects than were those in other contexts, such as prevention or screening. Interventions using individual risk estimates were associated with larger effects than were those using more general risk information. Two design variables were identified as effect modifiers: randomized controlled trials were associated with smaller effects than other designs, and dichotomous outcomes were associated with larger effects than continuous outcomes. Conclusions. Risk communication interventions may be most productive if they include individual risk estimates in the discussion between professional and patient. Patient decisions about treatment appear more amenable to change by these interventions than attendance for screening or modification of risky behavior. Key words: risk communication; prevention interventions; patient behavioral changes; systematic review. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:290-297)

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian Edwards & Kerenza Hood & Elaine Matthews & Daphne Russell & Ian Russell & Jacqueline Barker & Michael Bloor & Philip Burnard & Judith Covey & Roisin Pill & Clare Wilkinson & Nigel Stott, 2000. "The Effectiveness of One-to-one Risk-communication Interventions in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 290-297, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:3:p:290-297
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000305
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000305?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sutherland, H. J. & Lockwood, G. A. & Tritchler, D. L. & Sem, F. & Brooks, L. & Till, J. E., 1991. "Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients: Is there 'noise' on the line?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 725-731, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lori Bennear & Alessandro Tarozzi & Alexander Pfaff & H. B. Soumya & Kazi Matin Ahmed & Alexander van Geen, 2010. "Bright Lines, Risk Beliefs, and Risk Avoidance: Evidence from a Randomized Intervention in Bangladesh," Working Papers 10-77, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    2. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.
    3. Botzen, W.J. Wouter & de Boer, Joop & Terpstra, Teun, 2013. "Framing of risk and preferences for annual and multi-year flood insurance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 357-375.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abel, Gregory A. & Glinert, Lewis H., 2008. "Chemotherapy as language: Sound symbolism in cancer medication names," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(8), pages 1863-1869, April.
    2. Michael D. Brundage & Judith R. Davidson & William J. Mackillop & Deb Feldman-Stewart & Patti Groome, 1998. "Using a Treatment-tradeoff Method to Elicit Preferences for the Treatment of Locally Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(3), pages 256-267, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:3:p:290-297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.