QSHC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, A
Topic Collections
Right arrowRelevant Article
Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:169-170
© 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute for Healthcare Improvement


COMMENTARY

Communicating risks in health care

Flexible rather than standardised approaches to communicating risks in health care

A Edwards

Correspondence to:
Dr A Edwards
Department of Primary Care, Swansea Clinical School, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK; a.g.k.edwards@swan.ac.uk


A sufficiently flexible approach to risk communication is needed to accommodate a wide range of patient interpretation and preferences for information

Keywords: side effects; risk perception; drug information; patient-caregiver communication; decision making

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Informed medical decision making depends at least partly on understanding the benefits and harms of different treatment options. This requires clear and relevant risk communication. In practice this means that information should include both harms and benefits where relevant, and be presented honestly—not hiding information thought to be less desirable. Attention should be paid to the potential pitfalls of "framing"—how different formats such as relative and absolute risk can manipulate decisions made.1 Certain types of risk information such as "natural frequencies" (for example, 1 in 10) are generally more consistently and accurately interpreted than percentages (for example, 10%). In percentages, the reference class (population or group to which the figure applies) is often not clearly specified.2 For any data, though, there are uncertainties and these should be shared where evident.3 There is support for having a range of information formats available (a "toolbox") so that . . . [Full text of this article]


Relevant Article

Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines
P Knapp, D K Raynor, and D C Berry
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2004 13: 176-180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J Qual Health CareHome page
M. Brezis, S. Israel, A. Weinstein-Birenshtock, P. Pogoda, A. Sharon, and R. Tauber
Quality of informed consent for invasive procedures
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, October 1, 2008; 20(5): 352 - 357.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Emerg. Med. J.Home page
J France, C Keen, and S Bowyer
Communicating risk to emergency department patients with chest pain
Emerg. Med. J., May 1, 2008; 25(5): 276 - 278.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2004 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.