Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 3/2017

01-06-2017 | short communication

Communicating Uncertainty in Benefits and Harms: A Review of Patient Decision Support Interventions

Authors: Nick Bansback, Madelaine Bell, Luke Spooner, Alysa Pompeo, Paul K. J. Han, Mark Harrison

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Interventions designed to help people deliberate and participate in their healthcare choices frequently describe uncertainty in potential benefits and harms. This uncertainty can be generalized to aleatory, or first-order uncertainty, represented by risk estimates, and epistemic, or second-order uncertainty, represented by imprecision in the risk estimates.

Objectives

The aim of this short communication was to review how patient decision support interventions (PDSIs) describe aleatory and epistemic uncertainty.

Research Design

We reviewed PDSIs available online in five repositories and extracted all the uncertainty statements.

Measures

A framework was developed and each statement was classified by presentation of uncertainty (aleatory and epistemic).

Results

Overall, we reviewed 460 PDSIs from eight main developers, which included 8956 uncertainty statements. When describing first-order, aleatory uncertainty, almost all PDSIs included at least one qualitative statement, such as ‘treatment may cause side effects’. Forty-four percent of PDSIs included at least one natural frequency, such as ‘2 in 100 people have side effects’. Second-order, epistemic uncertainty was also most often communicated qualitatively; notably, nearly half of all PDSIs did not communicate epistemic uncertainty at all. Few PDSIs communicated epistemic uncertainty in quantitative terms conveying imprecision, e.g. risk ranges.

Conclusions

We found considerable heterogeneity in both the extent and manner in which aleatory and epistemic uncertainties are communicated in PDSIs. This variation is predominately explained by a lack of evidence and consensus in risk communication, particularly for epistemic uncertainty. This study highlights the need for more empirical research to understand not only the outcomes of communicating uncertainty in PDSIs but also the reasons for this variation in uncertainty communication.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Stiel M, Durand M-A, Boivin J. The design of patient decision support interventions: addressing the theory–practice gap. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):565–74.CrossRefPubMed Elwyn G, Stiel M, Durand M-A, Boivin J. The design of patient decision support interventions: addressing the theory–practice gap. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):565–74.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Stacey D, Légaré F, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD001431. Stacey D, Légaré F, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD001431.
3.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
4.
go back to reference Briss P, Rimer B, Reilley B, Coates RC, Lee NC, Mullen P, et al. Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):67–80.CrossRefPubMed Briss P, Rimer B, Reilley B, Coates RC, Lee NC, Mullen P, et al. Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):67–80.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Han PK. Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):14S–36S.CrossRefPubMed Han PK. Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):14S–36S.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PK, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(2):1–15. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PK, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(2):1–15.
8.
9.
go back to reference Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Trevena LJ, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1):13–23.CrossRefPubMed Trevena LJ, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1):13–23.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(1):54–9.CrossRefPubMed Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(1):54–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Q J Econ. 1961;75(4):643–69.CrossRef Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Q J Econ. 1961;75(4):643–69.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Camerer C, Weber M. Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. J Risk Uncertain. 1992;5(4):325–70.CrossRef Camerer C, Weber M. Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. J Risk Uncertain. 1992;5(4):325–70.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. Communication of ambiguous risk information. Theory Decis. 1991;31(2–3):159–73.CrossRef Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. Communication of ambiguous risk information. Theory Decis. 1991;31(2–3):159–73.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference McCormack L, Sheridan S, Lewis M, Boudewyns V, Melvin CL, Kistler C, et al. Communication and dissemination strategies to facilitate the use of health-related evidence. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013. Report no. 13(14)-E003-EF. McCormack L, Sheridan S, Lewis M, Boudewyns V, Melvin CL, Kistler C, et al. Communication and dissemination strategies to facilitate the use of health-related evidence. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013. Report no. 13(14)-E003-EF.
16.
go back to reference Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman AN. The communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(2):354–66.CrossRef Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman AN. The communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(2):354–66.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10(8):895–8.PubMed Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10(8):895–8.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Han PK, Klein WM, Lehman TC, Massett H, Lee SC, Freedman AN. Laypersons’ responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(3):391–403.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Han PK, Klein WM, Lehman TC, Massett H, Lee SC, Freedman AN. Laypersons’ responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(3):391–403.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(6):459–67.CrossRefPubMed Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(6):459–67.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Politi MC, Lewis CL, Frosch DL. Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):113S–28S.CrossRefPubMed Politi MC, Lewis CL, Frosch DL. Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):113S–28S.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Engelhardt EG, Pieterse AH, Han PK, van Duijn-Bakker N, Cluitmans F, Maartense E, et al. Disclosing the uncertainty associated with prognostic estimates in breast cancer current practices and patients’ perceptions of uncertainty. Med Decis Making. (Epub 28 Sep 2016). Engelhardt EG, Pieterse AH, Han PK, van Duijn-Bakker N, Cluitmans F, Maartense E, et al. Disclosing the uncertainty associated with prognostic estimates in breast cancer current practices and patients’ perceptions of uncertainty. Med Decis Making. (Epub 28 Sep 2016).
22.
go back to reference Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;70(1):37. Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;70(1):37.
23.
go back to reference Bansback N, Harrison M, Marra C. Does introducing imprecision around probabilities for benefit and harm influence the way people value treatments? Med Decis Making. 2016;36(4):490–502.CrossRefPubMed Bansback N, Harrison M, Marra C. Does introducing imprecision around probabilities for benefit and harm influence the way people value treatments? Med Decis Making. 2016;36(4):490–502.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Howard RA. Uncertainty about probability: a decision analysis perspective. Risk Anal. 1988;8(1):91–8.CrossRef Howard RA. Uncertainty about probability: a decision analysis perspective. Risk Anal. 1988;8(1):91–8.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference CCSP. Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating and incorporating scientific uncertainty in climate decision making. In: Granger Morgan M, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T, editors. A report by the climate change science program and the subcommittee on global change Research. Washington: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 2009. CCSP. Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating and incorporating scientific uncertainty in climate decision making. In: Granger Morgan M, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T, editors. A report by the climate change science program and the subcommittee on global change Research. Washington: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 2009.
26.
go back to reference Kattan MW. Doc, what are my chances? A conversation about prognostic uncertainty. Eur Urol. 2011;59(2):224.CrossRefPubMed Kattan MW. Doc, what are my chances? A conversation about prognostic uncertainty. Eur Urol. 2011;59(2):224.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Han PK, Klein WM, Killam B, Lehman T, Massett H, Freedman AN. Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):106–13.CrossRefPubMed Han PK, Klein WM, Killam B, Lehman T, Massett H, Freedman AN. Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):106–13.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Communicating Uncertainty in Benefits and Harms: A Review of Patient Decision Support Interventions
Authors
Nick Bansback
Madelaine Bell
Luke Spooner
Alysa Pompeo
Paul K. J. Han
Mark Harrison
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0210-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 3/2017 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine