IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0003693.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Should the Impact of Different Presentations of Treatment Effects on Patient Choice Be Evaluated? A Pilot Randomized Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Cheryl Carling
  • Doris Tove Kristoffersen
  • Jeph Herrin
  • Shaun Treweek
  • Andrew D Oxman
  • Holger Schünemann
  • Elie A Akl
  • Victor Montori

Abstract

Background: Different presentations of treatment effects can affect decisions. However, previous studies have not evaluated which presentations best help people make decisions that are consistent with their own values. We undertook a pilot study to compare different methods for doing this. Methods and Findings: We conducted an Internet-based randomized trial comparing summary statistics for communicating the effects of statins on the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Participants rated the relative importance of treatment consequences using visual analogue scales (VAS) and category rating scales (CRS) with five response options. We randomized participants to either VAS or CRS first and to one of six summary statistics: relative risk reduction (RRR) and five absolute measures of effect: absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, event rates, tablets needed to take, and natural frequencies (whole numbers). We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' elicited values and treatment choices. 770 participants age 18 or over and literate in English completed the study. In all, 13% in the VAS-first group failed to complete their VAS rating, while 9% of the CRS-first group failed to complete their scoring (p = 0.03). Different ways of weighting the elicited values had little impact on the analyses comparing the different presentations. Most (51%) preferred the RRR compared to the other five summary statistics (1% to 25%, p = 0.074). However, decisions in the group presented the RRR deviated substantially from those made in the other five groups. The odds of participants in the RRR group deciding to take statins were 3.1 to 5.8 times that of those in the other groups across a wide range of values (p = 0.0007). Participants with a scientific background, who were more numerate or had more years of education were more likely to decide not to take statins. Conclusions: Internet-based trials comparing different presentations of treatment effects are feasible, but recruiting participants is a major challenge. Despite a slightly higher response rate for CRS, VAS is preferable to avoid approximation of a continuous variable. Although most participants preferred the RRR, participants shown the RRR were more likely to decide to take statins regardless of their values compared with participants who were shown any of the five other summary statistics. Trial Registration: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN85194921

Suggested Citation

  • Cheryl Carling & Doris Tove Kristoffersen & Jeph Herrin & Shaun Treweek & Andrew D Oxman & Holger Schünemann & Elie A Akl & Victor Montori, 2008. "How Should the Impact of Different Presentations of Treatment Effects on Patient Choice Be Evaluated? A Pilot Randomized Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(11), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0003693
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003693
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003693
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003693&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0003693?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. H. Llewellyn-Thomas & H.J. Sutherland & R. Tibshirani & A. Ciampi & J.E. Till & N.F. Boyd, 1982. "The Measurement of Patients' Values in Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 2(4), pages 449-462, December.
    2. Judith Covey, 2007. "A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Presenting Treatment Benefits in Different Formats," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 638-654, September.
    3. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    4. Adrian Edwards & Glyn Elwyn, 1999. "How Should Effectiveness of Risk Communication to Aid Patients' Decisions Be Judged?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 428-434, October.
    5. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    6. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    2. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    3. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    4. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    5. Adam Oliver, 2005. "Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 149-159, February.
    6. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla, 1997. "Using Willingness To Pay To Value Close Substitutes: Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 145-159, March.
    7. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    8. Johanna Cook & Jeff Richardson & Andrew Street, 1994. "A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 157-168, May.
    9. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    10. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer, 2014. "Deriving Time Discounting Correction Factors For Tto Tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 410-425, April.
    11. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    12. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.
    13. Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Harmanna van Dalen & Mary-Alison Durand & Jenny Morris & Alan Williams, 1993. "Comparing scaling methods for health state valuations - Rosser revisited," Working Papers 107chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    14. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Göran Karlsson, 1996. "Outcome measurement in economic evaluation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(4), pages 279-296, July.
    15. Jose Mª Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez Martínez, 2009. "The QALY model wich came in from a general population survey: roughly multiplicative, broadly nonlinear and sometimes contex-dependt," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2009/04, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    16. Kristina Burström & Magnus Johannesson & Finn Diderichsen, 2003. "The value of the change in health in Sweden 1980/81 to 1996/97," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 637-654, August.
    17. van Riel, A.C.R. & Lievens, A., 2003. "New service development in high tech sectors: a decision making perspective," Research Memorandum 013, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    18. Harin, Alexander, 2006. "Scientific Revolution? A Farewell to EconWPA. MPRA is welcome," MPRA Paper 71, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Gatti, Nicolas & Cecil, Michael & Baylis, Kathy & Estes, Lyndon & Blekking, Jordan & Heckelei, Thomas & Vergopolan, Noemi & Evans, Tom, 2023. "Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    20. Paul Downward, "undated". "Risk, Uncertainty and Inference in Post Keynesian Economics:A Realist Commentary," Working Papers 98-8, Staffordshire University, Business School.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0003693. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.