ReviewQuality in health care : QHC2001
Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences.
Review in Quality in health care : QHC, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: what is known about its communication, and what are the associated ethical issues?Family practice · 2021Pooled it
- Translating Evidence to Advanced Parkinson's Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Beliefs about causes of colon cancer by English-as-a-Second-Language Chinese immigrant women to Canada.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2011Trial
- Doctors and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Trial
- Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines.Quality & safety in health care · 2004Trial
- Prescription Drugs Subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy: Patient Perspectives on Risk Communication and the Value of Educational Materials.Drug safety · 2026Article
- Patient and Public involvement to understand and inform the co-design of how we communicate mortality risk for patients aged 90 and over considering elective total hip replacement (THR).Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Risk of cardiovascular disease in Germany: results from GEDA 2022.Journal of health monitoring · 2025Article
- Thyroid Cancer Risk Communication in Patients with Thyroid Nodules.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Comorbidity-stratified estimates of 30-day mortality risk by age for unvaccinated men and women with COVID-19: a population-based cohort study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Navigating ethical challenges of conducting randomized clinical trials on COVID-19.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2022Article
- Review
- Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer's risky health choices.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Article
- The Impact of Matching to Psychotherapy Preference on Engagement in a Randomized Controlled Trial for Patients With Advanced Cancer.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Article
- Medication-related harm in older adults following hospital discharge: development and validation of a prediction tool.BMJ quality & safety · 2020Article
- A qualitative exploration of clinicians' strategies to communicate risks to patients in the complex reality of clinical practice.PloS one · 2020Article
- What and how are students taught about communicating risks to patients? Analysis of a medical curriculum.PloS one · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper defines risk and its component elements and describes where clinical practice may be starting from in terms of what is reported in the literature about understanding risks and the information requirements of consumers. It notes briefly how theoretical models in the literature contribute to our understanding by providing a basis from which to summarise current evidence about the effects of healthcare interventions which address risks and risk behaviour. The situations or types of interventions in which risk related interventions are most effective are described, but a significant caveat is noted about the types of outcomes which have been reported in the literature and which are most appropriate to evaluate. The effects of "framing" variations in the information given to consumers and the ethical dilemmas these raise for a debate about "informed choice" in healthcare programmes are discussed. In response to both the practical and ethical dilemmas that arise from the current evidence, some of the areas where attention should be focused in the future are outlined so that both health gain and informed choice might be achieved. These include the use of decision aids, although their implementation is not widespread at present. Lessons from the current literature on how further progress can be made towards improved communication, discussion between professionals and consumers, and enhancing informed choice are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.