How efficacy data is presented influences information processing and treatment decisions of patients and health professionals. The present study investigated the impact of risk reduction format on the understanding and recall of treatment effects, as well as on the acceptance of the treatment in question.
The effects of intelligence and prior experience were examined in an explorative way. In an online questionnaire, 172 laypersons read a hypothetical scenario of a visit to the dentist and the possibility to take paracetamol for pain relief.
Participants received efficacy information either as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction or number needed to treat, interpreted these figures and indicated the likelihood of them taking the medication. In the end, they were asked to recall the initially presented effect. Risk reduction in relative terms was understood least well and more persuasive than in absolute terms. Prior experience with the medication had an impact on its acceptance. Probably, the overestimation of relative risk information mediates its higher persuasiveness.
Table of Contents
1 Empirical Background
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Communicating Risk
1.3 State of Research
1.4 Research Question
2 Method
2.1 Sample
2.2 Experimental Design
2.3 Test Material
2.4 Preparation for Data Analysis
2.5 Statistical Analysis
3 Results
3.1 The Impact of Presentation Format
3.2 Further Analysis
4 Discussion
4.1 Summary of Main Results
4.2 Integration of Results in Current State of Research
4.3 Effect Size and Power
4.4 Internal Validity
4.5 External Validity
4.6 Prospective future research
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The thesis aims to investigate how different quantitative risk presentation formats (ARR, RRR, NNT) influence laypeople's comprehension, persuasiveness, and recall of treatment efficacy information, ultimately seeking to identify the most appropriate communication format for medical settings.
- Impact of risk reduction formats (ARR, RRR, NNT) on information processing.
- Role of intelligence (numeracy/education) and prior experience in interpreting risk data.
- Cognitive biases and the overestimation of treatment effects via relative risk reduction (RRR).
- The relationship between the understanding of efficacy data and treatment acceptance.
Excerpt from the Book
1.3 State of Research
The process of decision-making is influenced by the frame in which the concerning information is presented (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). For instance, the effectiveness of a treatment is perceived to be larger if it is set in a ‘gain’ (e.g., reporting the number of patients surviving by the use of a medication) rather than a ‘loss’ frame (e.g., reporting the number of patients dying by the same medication). In theory, the presentation of treatment effectiveness in different risk reduction formats can also be described as framing and the perceptive variations thereby induced as framing effects. Insofar as framing is a considerably vague term and includes the decision-maker’s general conception of the premises associated with a particular choice (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), hereafter the process of interest will be directly described as the impact of different risk reduction formats.
Malenka, Baron, Johansen, Wahrenberger, and Ross (1993) formed one of the first scientific working groups to investigate this process in patients. When having to choose between two equally efficacious medications to treat a hypothetical disease, one presented in relative, the other in absolute terms, more than half of the 470 included patients preferred the one given in relative numbers. An indifference between the two medications, which would be the rationally correct choice, was only stated by 16 percent of the patients. Supposing that patients are eager to identify the most effective treatment apparent in great figures, it seems that risk reduction in a relative format is perceived to be larger and therefore more likely to be chosen.
Summary of Chapters
1 Empirical Background: Provides the foundation regarding risk disclosure laws, the necessity of patient involvement, and the theoretical framing of risk communication.
2 Method: Details the study's online questionnaire design, participant demographics (n=172), randomization, and the assessment of variables including comprehension, persuasiveness, and recall.
3 Results: Reports that absolute risk reduction (ARR) is better understood, whereas relative risk reduction (RRR) is found to be most persuasive despite higher susceptibility to misinterpretation.
4 Discussion: Interprets the findings within existing literature, addresses threats to validity, and provides recommendations for future risk communication strategies in clinical practice.
Keywords
Risk communication, Absolute risk reduction, Relative risk reduction, Number needed to treat, Framing effect, Patient decision-making, Comprehensibility, Persuasiveness, Numeracy, Informed consent, Evidence-based medicine, Treatment acceptance, Health decisions, Cognitive bias, Efficacy data
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental objective of this bachelor thesis?
The study examines how different quantitative presentation formats of drug efficacy data—specifically absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and number needed to treat—influence the understanding, persuasiveness, and recall of information for laypeople.
What are the primary risk formats analyzed in this research?
The study evaluates three specific measures: Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR), Relative Risk Reduction (RRR), and Number Needed to Treat (NNT).
Which research methodology was employed?
The author conducted an online experiment with 172 participants using a hypothetical scenario regarding a dental procedure and the use of paracetamol, testing comprehension and acceptance of efficacy data.
What is the central finding regarding RRR?
The research concludes that RRR is significantly more persuasive than absolute measures, but this persuasiveness is often driven by a fundamental misinterpretation and overestimation of the actual treatment effect.
How do individual cognitive factors affect the results?
The study explores numeracy and educational background as covariates, noting that these factors are linked to the accuracy of interpreting complex numerical risk information.
Does the presentation format affect the long-term recall of information?
The analysis showed that while format influences understanding and acceptance, it did not demonstrate a significant impact on the participants' ability to recall the efficacy information after a distraction task.
Why was paracetamol chosen for the hypothetical scenario?
The medication was selected because it is a common drug that most participants would have experienced or could easily imagine using in a realistic, non-intimidating scenario.
What is the significance of the findings for clinical practice?
The results suggest that current methods of communicating risk may lead to skewed decision-making, implying that healthcare providers should prioritize absolute figures to support truly informed patient choices.
- Quote paper
- Angelique Zessin (Author), 2016, Choose Your Words Wisely. How Laypeople’s Health Decisions are Shaped by Presentation Format, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/335526
