Dataset Information

Influence of Cardiovascular Risk Communication Tools and Presentation Formats on Patient Perceptions and Preferences.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Practice guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in treatment decisions and explain atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk but do not describe how to communicate this risk most effectively. Objective:To determine how the ASCVD risk time horizon, outcome, and presentation format influence risk perceptions and treatment preferences. Design, Setting, and Participants:From May 27, 2015, through November 12, 2015, participants from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry at 140 US cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices were presented 3 independent scenarios (representing the same hypothetical patient) and asked to rate their perceived risk and willingness to take medication to lower risk in light of (1) a 15% 10-year ASCVD event risk, (2) a 4% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) death risk, and (3) a 50% lifetime ASCVD event risk. Exposures:Participants were randomized to receive risk estimates using numbers only, a bar graph, or a face pictogram. Results:Of 3566 eligible participants, 2708 (76.9%) responded (median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 61-76 years]; 280 [10.3%] African American; 1491 men [55.1%]). When shown the lifetime ASCVD risk, respondents were more likely to consider the risk "high to very high" than when presented the 10-year ASCVD risk or the CVD death risk (70.1% vs 31.4% vs 25.7%, respectively; both P?

SUBMITTER: Navar AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6551302 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influence of Cardiovascular Risk Communication Tools and Presentation Formats on Patient Perceptions and Preferences.

Navar Ann Marie AM Wang Tracy Y TY Mi Xiaojuan X Robinson Jennifer G JG Virani Salim S SS Roger Veronique L VL Wilson Peter W F PWF Goldberg Anne C AC Peterson Eric D ED

JAMA cardiology 20181201 12

<h4>Importance</h4>Practice guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in treatment decisions and explain atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk but do not describe how to communicate this risk most effectively.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine how the ASCVD risk time horizon, outcome, and presentation format influence risk perceptions and treatment preferences.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>From May 27, 2015, through November 12, 2015, participants from the Patien ...[more]

PMID: 30419113

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClear communication about the possible outcomes of proposed medical interventions is an integral part of medical care. Despite its importance, there have been few studies comparing different formats for presenting probabilistic information to patients, especially when small probabilities are involved. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential usefulness of several new small-risk graphic communication formats.MethodsInformation about the likelihoods of cancer and cancer prevention associated with two hypothetical cancer screening programs were used to create an augmented bar chart, an augmented grouped icon display, a flow chart, and three paired combinations of these formats. In the study scenario, the baseline risk of cancer was 53 per 1,000 (5.3%). The risk associated with cancer screening option A was 38 per 1,000 (3.8%) and the risk associated with screening option B was 29 per 1,000 (2.9%). Both the augmented bar chart and the augmented grouped icon display contained magnified views of the differences in cancer risk and cancer prevention associated with the screening programs. A convenience sample of 29 subjects (mean age 56.4 years; 76% men) used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to indicate their relative preferences for the six formats using 15 sequential paired comparisons.ResultsThe most preferred format was the combined augmented bar chart + flow diagram (mean preference score 0.43) followed by the combined augmented icon + augmented bar chart format (mean preference score 0.22). The overall differences among the six formats were statistically significant: Kruskal-Wallis Chi Square = 141.4, p < 0.0001. The three combined formats all had statistically significant higher preferences scores than the single format displays (p < 0.05).ConclusionThese findings suggest that patients may prefer combined, rather than single, graphic risk presentation formats and that augmented bar charts and icon displays may be useful for conveying comparative information about small risks to clinical decision makers. Further research to confirm and extend these findings is warranted.

Project description:Patient reports of their adherence behaviors, concerns about statins, and perceptions of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk could inform approaches for improving adherence to statin therapy. We examined these factors and their associations with adherence.We conducted telephone interviews among a stratified random sample of adults receiving statins within an integrated delivery system (N = 730, 81% response rate) in 2010. We sampled equal numbers of individuals in three clinical risk categories: those with 1) coronary artery disease; 2) diabetes or other ASCVD diagnosis; and 3) no diabetes or ASCVD diagnoses. We assessed 15 potential concerns about and barriers to taking statins, and perceived risk of having a heart attack in the next 10 years (0-10 scale). We calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) by statins in the last 12 months using dispensing data and used multivariate logistic regression to examine the characteristics associated with non-adherence (PDC<80%). Analyses were weighted for sampling proportions.Sixty-one percent of patients with PDC<50% reported not filling a new prescription, splitting or skipping statins, or stopping refilling statins in the last 12 months vs. 15% of those with PDC?80% (p<0.05). The most commonly reported concerns about statins were preferring to lower cholesterol with lifestyle changes (66%), disliking medications in general (59%), and liver or kidney problems (31%); having trouble remembering to take statins (9%) was the most common reason for taking less than prescribed. In multivariate analyses, clinical risk categories were not significantly associated with odds of non-adherence; however, those with higher perceived risk of heart attack were less likely to be non-adherent.Patient-reported medication-taking behaviors were correlated with statin PDC and those with lower perceived cardiovascular risk were less likely to be adherent. These findings highlight the importance of eliciting from and educating patients on their adherence behaviors and ASCVD risks.

Project description:PurposeProstate cancer screening guidelines have changed as new evidence showing an equivocal mortality benefit led many organizations to relax recommendations for this screening and instead suggest shared decision making. Presently, it is unknown how successfully these conversations happen. Our objective was to understand men's communication preferences when they discuss prostate cancer screening.MethodsIn this scoping review, we searched 4 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) and the gray literature. Additional studies were obtained from reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles. We included qualitative studies reporting patient perspectives relevant to the research question and published in English. Two independent researchers screened titles and abstracts based on these criteria, conducted a full-text review for final inclusion, evaluated the remaining articles for validity, extracted data, and used thematic analysis to build a thematic framework. A subgroup analysis was performed for Black men as many studies elicited their perspectives.ResultsAnalyses were based on 29 studies. We identified 4 main themes that men described as critical for successful prostate cancer screening risk discussions with their primary care clinician: using everyday language, receiving a sufficient quantity of information, spending enough time, and having a trusting and respectful relationship. Three additional themes emerged that prohibited men from having any discussions at all: having already decided to pursue prostate cancer screening, being passive in medical encounters, and perceiving threat to one's well-being. Black men faced racism, which impacted medical interactions.ConclusionsOur findings point to strategies to support men's communication preferences and address preconceptions surrounding prostate cancer screening. More studies are needed in certain underrepresented populations given the propensity for disparity in health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundTechnology is increasingly transforming the way we interact with others and undertake activities in our daily lives. The healthcare setting has, however, not yet realised the potential of technology solutions to facilitate communication between patients and healthcare providers. While the procedural and policy requirements of healthcare systems will ultimately drive such solutions, understanding the preferences and attitudes of patients is essential to ensure that technology implemented in the healthcare setting facilitates communication in safe, acceptable, and appropriate ways. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences for using technology to communicate with health service providers about symptoms experienced following discharge from the hospital.MethodsPrimary data were collected from patients admitted to a large metropolitan hospital in Australia during three consecutive months in 2018. Participants were asked about their daily use of technology including use of computers, email, phone, text messaging, mobile applications, social media, online discussion forums, and videoconference. They were then asked about their use of technologies in managing their health, and preferences for use when communicating about symptoms with health service providers following discharge from hospital.ResultsFive hundred and twenty-five patients with a wide range of differing clinical conditions and demographics participated. Patients indicated they used a range of technologies in their everyday lives and to manage their health. Almost 60% of patients would prefer to return to hospital if they were experiencing symptoms of concern. However, if patients experienced symptoms that were not of concern, over 60% would prefer to communicate with the hospital via telephone or using technology. Admitting condition, income, and age were significantly associated with preferences for communication about symptoms following hospital discharge.ConclusionsPatients have varied preferences for communicating with their health service providers post-hospital discharge. Findings suggest that some, but not all patients, would prefer to use technology to traditional methods of communicating with the healthcare team. Health services should offer patients multiple options for communicating about their recovery to ensure individual needs are appropriately met.

Dataset Information

Influence of Cardiovascular Risk Communication Tools and Presentation Formats on Patient Perceptions and Preferences.

Publications

Influence of Cardiovascular Risk Communication Tools and Presentation Formats on Patient Perceptions and Preferences.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets