IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i4p430-442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Numbers Matter to Informed Patient Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen Peters
  • P. Sol Hart
  • Martin Tusler
  • Liana Fraenkel

Abstract

Background. How drug adverse events (AEs) are communicated in the United States may mislead consumers and result in low adherence. Requiring written information to include numeric AE-likelihood information might lessen these effects, but providing numbers may disadvantage less skilled populations. The objective was to determine risk comprehension and willingness to use a medication when presented with numeric or nonnumeric AE-likelihood information across age, numeracy, and cholesterol-lowering drug-use groups. Methods. In a cross-sectional Internet survey ( N = 905; American Life Panel, 15 May 2008 to 18 June 2008), respondents were presented with a hypothetical prescription medication for high cholesterol. AE likelihoods were described using 1 of 6 formats (nonnumeric: consumer medication information (CMI)–like list, risk labels; numeric: percentage, frequency, risk labels + percentage, risk labels + frequency). Main outcome measures were risk comprehension (recoded to indicate presence/absence of risk overestimation and underestimation), willingness to use the medication (7-point scale; not likely = 0, very likely = 6), and main reason for willingness (chosen from 8 predefined reasons). Results. Individuals given nonnumeric information were more likely to overestimate risk, were less willing to take the medication, and gave different reasons than those provided numeric information across numeracy and age groups (e.g., among the less numerate, 69% and 18% overestimated risks in nonnumeric and numeric formats, respectively; among the more numerate, these same proportions were 66% and 6%). Less numerate middle-aged and older adults, however, showed less influence of numeric format on willingness to take the medication. It is unclear whether differences are clinically meaningful, although some differences are large. Conclusions. Providing numeric AE-likelihood information (compared with nonnumeric) is likely to increase risk comprehension across numeracy and age levels. Its effects on uptake and adherence of prescribed drugs should be similar across the population, except perhaps in older, less numerate individuals.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen Peters & P. Sol Hart & Martin Tusler & Liana Fraenkel, 2014. "Numbers Matter to Informed Patient Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(4), pages 430-442, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:4:p:430-442
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13511705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13511705
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13511705?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. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    2. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Paul Slovic & Ellen M. Peters, 2009. "The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decisionmakers Varying in Numeracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(10), pages 1473-1488, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    2. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    3. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    4. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    5. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    6. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    7. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    8. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    9. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    10. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    11. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    12. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    13. Yoko Ueno & Mayumi Kako & Mitsuko Ohira & Hitoshi Okamura, 2020. "Shared decision‐making for women facing an unplanned pregnancy: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1186-1196, December.
    14. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    15. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    16. Våga, Bodil Bø & Moland, Karen Marie & Evjen-Olsen, Bjørg & Blystad, Astrid, 2014. "Reflections on informed choice in resource-poor settings: The case of infant feeding counselling in PMTCT programmes in Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 22-29.
    17. Antonius Schneider & Magdalena Wübken & Klaus Linde & Markus Bühner, 2014. "Communicating and Dealing with Uncertainty in General Practice: The Association with Neuroticism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-7, July.
    18. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2019. "Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 792-804, April.
    19. Jonathan J. Rolison & Kinga Morsanyi & Ellen Peters, 2020. "Understanding Health Risk Comprehension: The Role of Math Anxiety, Subjective Numeracy, and Objective Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 222-234, February.
    20. Öhlén, Joakim & Balneaves, Lynda G. & Bottorff, Joan L. & Brazier, Alison S.A., 2006. "The influence of significant others in complementary and alternative medicine decisions by cancer patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1625-1636, September.

    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:34:y:2014:i:4:p:430-442. 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.