Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23889596›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2013

Presenting the improved possibility for staying well might be better than talking about change in risk: use of the non-occurrence probability increase (NOPI).

Bertil Hagström, Ronny K Gunnarsson, Mark Rosenfeld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bertil HagströmResearch and Development Unit, Primary Health Care and Dental Care, Southern Älvsborg County, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. bertil.hagstrom@telia.co
Ronny K Gunnarsson
Mark Rosenfeld

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTalking about risk with patients is problematic since the individual's risk is not addressed and is usually very low. This study aimed to see how fact presentation influenced the decision-making process for general practitioners concerning treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Rather than looking at the risk of becoming ill, often presented as high figures of relative risk reduction (RRR), it could be useful to present the probability of staying well, i.e. from the concept of non-occurrence probability (NOP) and non-occurrence probability increase (NOPI)--simply a single measure of change in NOP.

designGeneral practitioners (GPs) had personal response keypads to answer two questions, presented differently, concerning whether they would allow themselves to be treated or not be treated for the risk of cardiovascular death. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Five audiences consisting of general practitioners attending lectures.

resultsWhen the question was presented as RRR, 68% and 86%, respectively, of the physicians responded that they would take the decision to treat. When presented as the concept of NOPI the figures were reduced to 18% and 16%, respectively (p < 10-6). IMPLICATIONS: Developing tools to explain treatment effect is crucial to enhancing health care quality. Since NOPI is one potential way of presenting prevention of risk we encourage future research to evaluate the NOPI concept compared with RRR and absolute risk reduction (ARR).

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'Risk Reduction BehaviorCardiovascular DiseasesDecision MakingGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersHumansPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicProbabilityRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesSweden

Identifiers

PMID23889596
PMCPMC3750434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.