• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

改善医疗权衡决策中风险沟通的形式。

Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions.

作者信息

Waters Erika A, Weinstein Neil D, Colditz Graham A, Emmons Karen

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA.

出版信息

J Health Commun. 2006 Mar;11(2):167-82. doi: 10.1080/10810730500526695.

DOI:10.1080/10810730500526695
PMID:16537286
Abstract

To make treatment decisions, patients should consider not only a treatment option's potential consequences but also the probability of those consequences. Many laypeople, however, have difficulty using probability information. This Internet-based study (2,601 participants) examined a hypothetical medical tradeoff situation in which a treatment would decrease one risk but increase another. Accuracy was assessed in terms of the ability to determine correctly whether the treatment would increase or decrease the total risk. For these tradeoff problems, accuracy was greater when the following occurred: (1) the amount of cognitive effort required to evaluate the tradeoff was reduced; (2) probability information was presented as a graphical display rather than as text only; and (3) information was presented as percentages rather than as frequencies (n in 100). These findings provide suggestions of ways to present risk probabilities that may help patients understand their treatment options.

摘要

为了做出治疗决策,患者不仅应考虑一种治疗方案的潜在后果,还应考虑这些后果发生的可能性。然而,许多外行人在使用概率信息方面存在困难。这项基于互联网的研究(2601名参与者)考察了一种假设的医疗权衡情况,即一种治疗会降低一种风险,但会增加另一种风险。根据正确判断治疗会增加还是降低总体风险的能力来评估准确性。对于这些权衡问题,在以下情况下准确性更高:(1)评估权衡所需的认知努力量减少;(2)概率信息以图形显示而非仅以文本形式呈现;(3)信息以百分比而非频率(每100中的n)呈现。这些发现为呈现风险概率的方式提供了建议,可能有助于患者理解他们的治疗选择。

相似文献

1
Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions.改善医疗权衡决策中风险沟通的形式。
J Health Commun. 2006 Mar;11(2):167-82. doi: 10.1080/10810730500526695.
2
Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature.风险沟通中的概率信息:研究文献综述
Risk Anal. 2009 Feb;29(2):267-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.x. Epub 2008 Nov 5.
3
Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-Accuracy, comprehension and preferences.传达风险信息:图形显示格式对定量信息感知的影响——准确性、理解与偏好
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Dec;69(1-3):121-8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.006. Epub 2007 Oct 1.
4
Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions.以不同形式呈现健康风险信息:对参与者认知、情感评估及决策的影响。
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):443-7. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.013. Epub 2008 Aug 21.
5
Aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions.预防性医疗决策中对副作用的厌恶。
Br J Health Psychol. 2007 Sep;12(Pt 3):383-401. doi: 10.1348/135910706X115209.
6
Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment.向患者传达手术风险的不同形式及其对治疗选择的影响。
Patient Educ Couns. 2004 Sep;54(3):255-63. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00238-6.
7
Comprehension of Internet-based numeric cancer information by older adults.老年人对基于互联网的癌症数字信息的理解。
Inform Health Soc Care. 2009 Dec;34(4):209-24. doi: 10.3109/17538150903358552.
8
Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions.在预防性医疗决策中减少对副作用的厌恶。
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007 Mar;13(1):11-21. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.13.1.11.
9
Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk of occurrence.呈现药物副作用信息的不同方式:发生的增量风险与总风险。
J Health Commun. 2008 Mar;13(2):107-24. doi: 10.1080/10810730701854011.
10
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.人类健康与环境风险的风险管理框架。
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608.

引用本文的文献

1
Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.《让数字有意义:健康领域概率沟通的循证综述》的范围、方法及概述性研究结果:一项系统综述
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255334. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255334. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
2
How Synthesis Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.概率格式如何影响综合任务:一项使数字有意义的系统评价
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241293796. doi: 10.1177/23814683241293796. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
3
Presenting decision-relevant numerical information to Dutch women aged 50-70 with varying levels of health literacy: Case example of adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer.
向荷兰 50-70 岁健康素养水平不同的女性呈现与决策相关的数值信息:乳腺癌辅助系统治疗的案例示例。
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 3;19(9):e0309668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309668. eCollection 2024.
4
The Effect of Anticipated Regret on Flu Vaccination Campaigns.预期遗憾对流感疫苗接种活动的影响。
Eur J Psychol. 2023 May 31;19(2):174-179. doi: 10.5964/ejop.7749. eCollection 2023 May.
5
Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments.抄近道:离散选择实验中的简化启发式方法。
Patient. 2023 Jul;16(4):301-315. doi: 10.1007/s40271-023-00625-y. Epub 2023 May 2.
6
Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions.关于肿瘤学干预措施的Cochrane系统评价的简明语言摘要及相应科学摘要的语言分析。
Cancer Med. 2023 May;12(9):10950-10960. doi: 10.1002/cam4.5825. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
7
Designing for patient decision-making: Design challenges generated by patients with atrial fibrillation during evaluation of a decision aid prototype.为患者决策而设计:在评估一种决策辅助工具原型期间,房颤患者所产生的设计挑战。
Front Digit Health. 2023 Jan 6;4:1086652. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.1086652. eCollection 2022.
8
Health vs. privacy? The risk-risk tradeoff in using COVID-19 contact-tracing apps.健康与隐私?使用新冠疫情接触者追踪应用程序中的风险权衡。
Technol Soc. 2021 Nov;67:101755. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101755. Epub 2021 Sep 21.
9
Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review.针对脆性骨折风险人群骨折风险的有效沟通:范围综述。
Osteoporos Int. 2022 Jan;33(1):13-26. doi: 10.1007/s00198-021-06151-7. Epub 2021 Sep 24.
10
The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment.不同绝对获益和危害信息对结直肠癌筛查参与意向的影响:出声思维研究和在线随机对照试验。
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 16;16(2):e0246991. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246991. eCollection 2021.