Dataset Information

A Simple Tool for Communicating the Benefits and Harms of Health Interventions: A Guide for Creating a Fact Box.

ABSTRACT: One of the major hurdles to promoting informed decision making in health is the continued use of poor risk presentation formats. This article offers a guide to develop a Fact Box, a simple decision tool to present data about the benefits and harms of treatments that has been demonstrated to improve understanding of health risks, an important part of risk literacy. The article offers guidance about how to determine the evidence basis for a health topic, select outcomes to report, extract and present numbers or outcomes, and design the layout. The guide also addresses potential challenges for summarizing evidence and provides alternatives for addressing issues related to missing, insufficient, imprecise, or conflicting evidence and for dealing with issues related to statistical and clinical significance. The guide concludes with details on how to document the development of the Fact Box for the purpose of transparency and reproducibility. Fact Boxes are an efficient tool to promote risk literacy and should be available in every physician's office.

SUBMITTER: McDowell M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6125040 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Simple Tool for Communicating the Benefits and Harms of Health Interventions: A Guide for Creating a Fact Box.

McDowell Michelle M Rebitschek Felix G FG Gigerenzer Gerd G Wegwarth Odette O

MDM policy & practice 20160701 1

One of the major hurdles to promoting informed decision making in health is the continued use of poor risk presentation formats. This article offers a guide to develop a Fact Box, a simple decision tool to present data about the benefits and harms of treatments that has been demonstrated to improve understanding of health risks, an important part of risk literacy. The article offers guidance about how to determine the evidence basis for a health topic, select outcomes to report, extract and pres ...[more]

PMID: 30288405

Similar Datasets

Project description:Context and objectiveStandards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature.Summary of methodThe new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel's recommendations.ConclusionWe present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.

Project description:PurposeCurrent radiation oncology patient education materials exceed national readability recommendations. A graphic narrative educational tool, the Communicating the External Beam Radiation Experience (CEBRE) discussion guide, was developed to facilitate patient-provider communication. A pilot study evaluated perceived benefits of CEBRE for patients and physicians.Methods and materialsCEBRE was designed through a collaboration between physicians and designers. Designers interviewed patients, family members, and the clinical team. Interviews were coded for themes, leading to the design principles that drove the design of CEBRE, including a graphic narrative component. CEBRE explains the radiation therapy care path. Readability was measured using the Flesch-Kincaid test. Patients receiving radiation therapy or in follow-up and practicing radiation oncologists reviewed CEBRE and completed independent surveys. Each survey included modified versions of the Systems Usability Score (SUS) and Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) short form, along with questions unique to CEBRE. Likert-type scores are reported as median (interquartile range).ResultsCEBRE scores at a 5.4 Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Thirty-four patients and 15 radiation oncologists completed surveys. Patients had completed a high school/general equivalency degree (18%), a 2-year degree or some college (50%), or at least 4 years of college (32%). Patient and physician responses were concordant. On a scale of 1 to 5 for modified SUS and 1 to 4 for modified STAI ("strongly disagree" to "strongly agree") the SUS scores were 4 (4-5) and 4 (4-5) and STAI scores were 3 (3-4) and 3 (3-3.5) for patients and providers, respectively. This indicates CEBRE is usable and would decrease anxiety. Compared with text, the graphic narrative component of CEBRE was rated as "quite helpful" (4 [4-5]).ConclusionsCEBRE, a graphic narrative education tool developed through a novel collaboration between designers and radiation therapy stakeholders, is accessible for patients and practical to facilitate patient-provider discussion. Perceived benefits demonstrating high usability and the potential to decrease patient anxiety warrant further prospective investigation of CEBRE in the clinical setting.

Project description:BackgroundAn estimated 20-30% of community-dwelling Canadian adults aged 65 years or older experience one or more falls each year. Fall-related injuries are a leading cause of hospitalization and can lead to functional independence. Many fall prevention interventions, often based on modifiable risk factors, have been studied. Apart from the magnitude of the benefits and harms from different interventions, the preferences of older adults for different interventions as well as the relative importance they place on the different potential outcomes may influence recommendations by guideline panels. These reviews on benefits and harms of interventions, and on patient values and preferences, will inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to develop recommendations on fall prevention for primary care providers.MethodsTo review the benefits and harms of fall prevention interventions, we will update a previous systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptations to modify the classification of interventions and narrow the scope to community-dwelling older adults and primary-care relevant interventions. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ageline), reference lists, trial registries, and relevant websites will be searched, using limits for randomized trials and date (2016 onwards). We will classify interventions according to the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFANE) Group's taxonomy. Outcomes include fallers, falls, injurious falls, fractures, hip fractures, institutionalization, health-related quality of life, functional status, and intervention-related adverse effects. For studies not included in the previous review, screening, study selection, data extraction on outcomes, and risk of bias assessments will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus used for final decisions. Where quantitative analysis is suitable, network or pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted using a frequentist approach in Stata. Assessment of the transitivity and coherence of the network meta-analyses will be undertaken. For the reviews on patient preferences and outcome valuation (relative importance of outcomes), we will perform de novo reviews with searches in three databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and reference lists for cross-sectional, longitudinal quantitative, or qualitative studies published from 2000. Selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments suitable for each study design will be performed in duplicate. The analysis will be guided by a narrative synthesis approach, which may include meta-analysis for health-state utilities. We will use the CINeMa approach to a rate the certainty of the evidence for outcomes on intervention effects analyzed using network meta-analysis and the GRADE approach for all other outcomes.DiscussionWe will describe the flow of literature and characteristics of all studies and present results of all analyses and summary of finding tables. We will compare our findings to others and discuss the limitations of the reviews and the available literature.Systematic review registrationThis protocol has not been registered.

Dataset Information

A Simple Tool for Communicating the Benefits and Harms of Health Interventions: A Guide for Creating a Fact Box.

Publications

A Simple Tool for Communicating the Benefits and Harms of Health Interventions: A Guide for Creating a Fact Box.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets