Alternate Methods of Framing Information About Medication Side Effects: Incremental Risk Versus Total Risk of Occurrence

Communications of treatment risk, such as medication package inserts, commonly report total rates of adverse reactions (e.g., 4% get heartburn with placebo, 9% with medication). This approach, however, requires mental arithmetic to distinguish the incremental risk caused by medication (here, 5%) from the total post-treatment risk. In two Internet-administered survey experiments (N = 2,012 and 1,393), we tested whether explicitly reporting the incremental risk and framing it as the “additional risk” of complications influenced people's impressions of adverse event risks. Study 1 compared side-by-side displays of total risks against sequential presentations that highlighted the incremental risk, using both text and graphical formats. Results showed that incremental risk formats significantly lowered participants' worry about complications and reduced biases caused by varying the risk denominator. Study 2 unpacked this factor and showed that its effect on both perceived likelihood and worry derives primarily from the incremental risk framing rather than from sequential presentation. Explicitly reporting incremental risk statistics appears to facilitate recognition of how much risk already exists at baseline. Presenting adverse reaction risks in this manner may improve patient comprehension of the effects of treatment decisions and support effective risk communication.

[1]  John A. Baron,et al.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk , 1993, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[2]  B Fischhoff,et al.  A New Scale for Assessing Perceptions of Chance , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[4]  Winston R. Sieck,et al.  Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance , 2003 .

[5]  C. E. Ferree,et al.  The use of the illumination scale for the detection of small errors in refraction and in their correction , 1920 .

[6]  P. Ubel,et al.  Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Assessing Values for Health: Numeracy Matters , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  The Role of Numeracy in Understanding the Benefit of Screening Mammography , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect , 1997 .

[10]  P. Ravdin,et al.  Decreased Use of Adjuvant Breast Cancer Therapy in a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Aid with Individualized Risk Information , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  C D Naylor,et al.  Measured Enthusiasm: Does the Method of Reporting Trial Results Alter Perceptions of Therapeutic Effectiveness? , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  W. Klein,et al.  Breast cancer risk perceptions and breast cancer worry: what predicts what? , 2005 .

[13]  C. McHorney,et al.  Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  S. Sloman The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[15]  A M Stiggelbout,et al.  Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  P. Windschitl,et al.  Context and the interpretation of likelihood information: the role of intergroup comparisons on perceived vulnerability. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  The visual communication of risk. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[18]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Communicating Statistical Information , 2000, Science.

[19]  J. Paling Strategies to help patients understand risks , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  J. Baron,et al.  Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation , 1997 .

[21]  B. Rimer,et al.  General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[22]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value , 2002 .

[23]  C K Redmond,et al.  Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[24]  G. Elwyn,et al.  One hundred years ago: Should milk be boiled? , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing , 1997 .

[26]  S. Epstein,et al.  The Generality of the Ratio-Bias Phenomenon , 1995 .

[27]  Kimihiko Yamagishi When a 12.86% Mortality is More Dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication , 1997 .

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[29]  C D Naylor,et al.  Using a Trade-off Technique to Assess Patients' Treatment Preferences for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[30]  B. Demichelis,et al.  Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe , 1994, The Lancet.

[31]  M. Schapira,et al.  Agreement Between Scales in the Measurement of Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  T. Whelan,et al.  Physician/patient decision aids for adjuvant therapy. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[33]  P. Ubel,et al.  Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[34]  H. Llewellyn-Thomas,et al.  Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation. , 1991, Social science & medicine.

[35]  R F Nease,et al.  Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. , 1995, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[36]  R M Arnold,et al.  Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. , 1992, The American journal of medicine.

[37]  Eric R. Stone,et al.  Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. , 1997 .

[38]  H Kunreuther,et al.  Determinants of Priority for Risk Reduction: The Role of Worry , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[39]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[40]  R. J. Cersosimo Tamoxifen for Prevention of Breast Cancer , 2003, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[41]  T. Fahey,et al.  Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews , 1995, BMJ.

[42]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Risk communication in clinical practice: putting cancer in context. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.