ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2001
Patients' responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Describing treatment effects to patients.Journal of general internal medicine · 2003Pooled it
- Trial
- Length of time periods in treatment effect descriptions and willingness to initiate preventive therapy: a randomised survey experiment.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Trial
- Doctors and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Trial
- The @RISK Study: Risk communication for patients with type 2 diabetes: design of a randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2010Trial
- The effect of how outcomes are framed on decisions about whether to take antihypertensive medication: a randomized trial.PloS one · 2010Trial
- How should the impact of different presentations of treatment effects on patient choice be evaluated? A pilot randomized trial.PloS one · 2008Trial
- Development and Piloting of a Web-Based Tool to Teach Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Communicating risk.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
- Medical decision making and the importance of baseline risk.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013Article
- Influence of framing and graphic format on comprehension of risk information among American Indian tribal college students.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2012Article
- Evaluation of benefit-risk.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Article
- The ethics of information: absolute risk reduction and patient understanding of screening.Journal of general internal medicine · 2008Article
- What do we know about communicating risk? A brief review and suggestion for contextualising serious, but rare, risk, and the example of cox-2 selective and non-selective NSAIDs.Arthritis research & therapy · 2008Review
- Optimizing medicines management: From compliance to concordance.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2007Article
- Gail model risk assessment and risk perceptions.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2004Article
- Is opportunistic disease prevention in the consultation ethically justifiable?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
- Patients' decisions about whether or not to take antihypertensive drugs: qualitative study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe medical profession is often presented with information on the value of treatment in terms of likely risk reduction. If this same information was presented to patients--so enabling them to give proper informed consent--would this affect their decision to be treated?
aimTo examine patients' choice about treatment in response to different forms of risk presentation. DESIGN OF STUDY: Postal questionnaire study.
settingThe questionnaire was sent to 102 hypertensive patients and 207 matched non-hypertensive patients aged between 35 and 65 years in a UK general practice.
methodsPatients were asked the likelihood, on a four-point scale, of their accepting treatment for a chronic condition (mild hypertension) on the basis of relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, and personal probability of benefit.
resultsAn 89% response rate was obtained. Of these, 92% would accept treatment using a relative risk reduction model, 75% would accept treatment using an absolute risk reduction model, 68% would accept treatment using a number needed to treat model, and 44% would accept treatment with a personal probability of benefit model.
conclusionMany patients may prefer not to take treatment for mild hypertension if the risks were fully explained. However, given that the form of the explanation has a strong influence on the patient's decision, it is not clear how decision-making can be fully shared nor what should constitute informed consent to treatment in this situation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11458479PMC1313976What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.