ArticleBMJ open2025
Novel assessment of risk tolerance in acute healthcare settings: a questionnaire-based study investigating risk tolerance of service users and staff in ambulatory care and front-door services.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWhen deciding acute healthcare delivery location, multiple factors should be considered, including risks associated with potential care locations and the willingness of decision stakeholders to take those risks. Individual risk tolerance potentially informs these choices. We therefore aimed to investigate the risk tolerance of staff, patients and carers in front-door and ambulatory care units.
designSeveral variants of the 'multiple price list' method of risk tolerance assessment were employed. The different variants covered financial and health outcomes, and known and unknown odds in the 'risky' options. For financial outcomes, participants made seven choices between a guaranteed (eg, £70) and risky (eg, chance of £20 or £160) outcome, with the higher quantity in the risky outcome increasing with each choice, in six 'lottery sets'. For health outcomes, participants made choices between a guaranteed and risky outcome measured in number of healthy days. SETTING AND
participantsStaff, patients and carers were recruited from front-door and ambulatory care units in the UK. OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk tolerance was the primary outcome measure and was established in two ways-number of times the guaranteed option was chosen, and the point where participants switched from the guaranteed to the risky option.
resultsAmong 338 participants, a wide range of risk tolerance levels were demonstrated, and three key findings were identified-participants were less risk tolerant in health-based than financial decisions; older people had a more dichotomised approach to health risk-taking than younger people; and patients could engage in informed, structured discussions about risk, including when acutely unwell.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that, while stakeholders in location-of-care decisions may have different risk tolerance levels, they can engage in structured discussions about risk, which should inform shared decision-making. Additionally, older patients, who constitute a significant proportion of hospital attendees, may be more willing to take health-based risks than younger people. Future work may benefit from formal exploration of people's rationale for their decisions and may be considered in other clinical settings.
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.