Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40301218›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025

Communicating Numeric Risk Information to Patients.

Ellen Peters, Paul K J Han, Clara N Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. 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.

Ellen PetersCenter for Science Communication Research, School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA. ellenpet@uoregon.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0702-6169
Paul K J HanBehavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Clara N LeeDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

Dissemination of a breast reconstruction decision tool through social media and online communitiesR01CA276408 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Clara Nan-hi Lee · 2024 to 2026
$1.9M
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences SES-2017651NCI NIH HHS R01 CA276408
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk information is increasingly available to health care providers and patients thanks to a growing body of health outcomes research and clinical prediction models. Meanwhile, communicating such information is encouraged for a variety of reasons. Yet clinicians often struggle to communicate risk information-or forego the task altogether due to various challenges. The challenges are real, and this paper briefly discusses six of them: (1) Clinician reliance on verbal risk descriptions, (2) Low patient numeracy; (3) Lack of meaningful numeric evidence; (4) Patient use of heuristics; (5) Uncertain risk information; and (6) The curse of knowledge. Specific strategies exist for clinicians, though, to overcome these complex challenges. In the paper, we present evidence-based best practices with examples of what clinicians can do to effectively communicate risk information to their patients (and what they should not do). The best practices include communicating with numbers, not only words; decreasing cognitive effort for patients; providing the meaning of numeric risk data important to decisions; acknowledging uncertainty; and testing communication with patients through teach-back techniques. We conclude by recommending that clinicians integrate these strategies into their existing scripts for patient encounters.

Indexed as

CommunicationPatient Education as TopicPhysician-Patient RelationsHumansRisk Assessmentnumeracypatient communicationrisk communicationshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID40301218
PMCPMC12508245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.