Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

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.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2011

Open Access 01-12-2011 | Research article

How do family physicians communicate about cardiovascular risk? Frequencies and determinants of different communication formats

Authors: Stefan Neuner-Jehle, Oliver Senn, Odette Wegwarth, Thomas Rosemann, Johann Steurer

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patients understand information about risk better if it is communicated in numerical or visual formats (e.g. graphs) compared to verbal qualifiers only. How frequently different communication formats are used in clinical primary care settings is unknown.

Methods

We collected socioeconomic and patient understanding data using questionnaires and audio-recorded consultations about cardiovascular disease risk. The frequencies of the communication formats were calculated and multivariate regression analysis of associations between communication formats, patient and general practitioner characteristics, and patient subjective understanding was performed.

Results

In 73% of 70 consultations, verbal qualifiers were used exclusively to communicate cardiovascular risk, compared to numerical (11%) and visual (16%) formats. Female GPs and female patient's gender were significantly associated with a higher use of verbal formats compared to visual formats (p = 0.001 and p = 0.039, respectively). Patient subjective understanding was significantly higher in visual counseling compared to verbal counseling (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Verbal qualifiers are the most often used communication format, though recommendations favor numerical and visual formats, with visual formats resulting in better understanding than others. Also, gender is associated with the choice of communication format. Barriers against numerical and visual communication formats among GPs and patients should be studied, including gender aspects. Adequate risk communication should be integrated into physicians' education.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Lipkus IM: Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007, 27: 696-713. 10.1177/0272989X07307271.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mullay A: Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. Brit Med J. 2002, 324: 827-30. 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.827.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Alaszewski A, Horlick-Jones T: How can doctors communicate information about risk more effectively?. Brit Med J. 2003, 326: 728-731. 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.728.CrossRef
4.
Price M, Cameron R, Butow P: Communicating risk information: The influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception - accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Pat Educ Couns. 2007, 69: 121-28. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.006.CrossRef
5.
Timmermans DRM, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Henneman L: Presenting health information in different formats: The effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Pat Educ Couns. 2008, 73: 443-47. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.013.CrossRef
6.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA: "If I'm better than average, then I'm ok?": Comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Pat Educ Couns. 2007, 69: 140-44. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.008.CrossRef
7.
Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Chan L, Jackson R, Wells S, Kenealy T: Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Ann Fam Med. 2008, 6: 213-7. 10.1370/afm.795.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Fuller R, Dudley N, Blacktop J: Risk communication and older people - understanding of probability and risk information by medical inpatients aged 75 years and older. Age Ageing. 2001, 30: 473-6. 10.1093/ageing/30.6.473.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckham NF: How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009, 135 (6): 943-73. 10.1037/a0017327.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Edwards AGK, Matthews E, Pill R, Bloor M: Communication about risk: diversity among primary care professionals. Fam Pract. 1998, 15: 296-300. 10.1093/fampra/15.4.296.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Van Steenkiste B, van der Weijden T, Stoffers HEJH: Improving cardiovascular risk managment: a randomized controlled trial on the effect of a decision support tool for patients and physicians. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2007, 14: 44-50. 10.1097/01.hjr.0000239475.71805.1e.CrossRefPubMed
12.
O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003, CD001431-
13.
Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted R: Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A National Study of Public Preferences. J Gen Intern Med. 2005, 20: 531-35. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.04101.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF: Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007, 27: 681-695. 10.1177/0272989X07307270.CrossRefPubMed
15.
American Heart Association. Heart and Stroke Statistics: 2008 Update. 2008, Dallax, TX: American Heart Association
16.
Deepak L, Bhatt et al for the REACH Register Investigators: International Prevalence, Recognition and Treatment of Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Outpatients with Atherothrombosis. J Amer Med Assoc. 2006, 295: 180-89. 10.1001/jama.295.2.180.CrossRef
17.
Boersma E, Keil U, De Bacquer D, De Backer G, Pyörälä K, for the EUROASPIRE I and II Study Groups: Blood pressure is insufficiently controlled in European patients with established coronary heart disease. J Hypertens. 2003, 21: 1831-1840. 10.1097/00004872-200310000-00009.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Turnball F: Managing cardiovascular risk factors: The gap between evidence and practice. PloS Med. 2005, 2 (5): e131-10.1371/journal.pmed.0020131.CrossRef
19.
Van der Weijden T, Bos LBJ, Koelewijn-van Loon MS: Primary care patients' recognition of their own risk for cardiovascular disease: implications for risk communication in practice. Curr Opinion in Cardiology. 2008, 23: 471-76. 10.1097/HCO.0b013e32830b35f6.CrossRef
20.
Sheridan SL, Viera AJ, Krantz MJ, Ice CL, Steinmann LE, et al: The effect of giving global coronary risk information to adults. Arch Intern Med. 2010, 170 (3): 230-39. 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.516.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Waldron CA, van der Weijden T, Ludt S, Gallacher J, Elwyn G: What are effective strategies to communicate cardiovascular risk information to patients? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2010
22.
Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA: Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making an information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1989, 4 (1): 23-30. 10.1007/BF02596485.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Giersdorf N, Loh A, Bieber C: Development and validation of assessment instruments for shared decision making. Bundesgesundheitsbl - Gesundheitsforsch - Gesundheitsschutz. Springer Verlag. 2004, 47: 969-976. 10.1007/s00103-004-0905-5.CrossRef
24.
Sandhu H, Adams A, Singleton L, Clark-Carter D, Kidd J: The impact of gender dyads on doctor-patient communication: a systematic review. Pat Educ Couns. 2009, 76 (3): 348-55. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.010.CrossRef
25.
Weinstein ND, Sandman PM, Roberts NE: Communicating effectively about risk magnitudes. New Brunswick (NJ): Environmental Communication Research Program, Cook College, Rutgers University. 1989
26.
Sandman PM, Weinstein ND, Miller P: High risk or low: How location on a risk ladder affects percieved risk. Risk Anal. 1984, 14: 35-45. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00026.x.CrossRef
27.
Stone ER, Yates JF, Parker AM: Effects of numerical and graphical display on a professed risk-taking behaviour. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1997, 3: 243-56. 10.1037/1076-898X.3.4.243.CrossRef
28.
Hollands JG, Spence I: Judging proportions with graphs: the summation model. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1998, 12: 173-90. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199804)12:2<173::AID-ACP499>3.0.CO;2-K.CrossRef
29.
National Cancer Institute, Officer of Cancer Communications: How the public percieves, processes and interprets risk information: findings from focus group research with the general public. 1998, Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute, Report-No POS-T 086
30.
Lipkus IM, Hollands JG: The visual communication of risk. J Nat Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999, 25: 149-63.CrossRef
31.
Aucker J, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren J: Design feature of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006, 13: 608-18. 10.1197/jamia.M2115.CrossRef
32.
Han P, Klein W, Lehman T, Massett H, Lee S, Freedman A: Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates. Med Decis Making. 2009, 29: 391-403. 10.1177/0272989X08327396.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Jarvenpaa S: Graphic displays in decision making - the visual salience effect. J Behav Decis Making. 1990, 3: 247-62.CrossRef
34.
Schirillo J, Stone E: The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Anal. 2005, 25: 555-66. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00624.x.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Chua HF, Yates JF, Shah P: Risk avoidance: graphs versus members. Mem cogn. 2006, 34: 399-410. 10.3758/BF03193417.CrossRef
36.
Stone E, Sieck W, Bull B, Yates J, Parsh S, Rush C: Foreground to background salience: explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 2003, 90: 19-36. 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00003-7.CrossRef
37.
Armstrong K, Fitzgerald G, Schwartz JS, Ubel PA: Using survival curve comparisons to informed patient decision making: can a practice exercise improve understanding?. J Gen Intern Med. 2001, 16: 482-5. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016007482.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Parrott R, Silk K, Dorgan K, Condit C, Harris T: Risk comprehension and judgements of statistical evidentiary appeals: when a picture is not worth thousand words. Health Comm Res. 2005, 31: 423-52.
39.
Timmermans DRM, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Henneman L: Presenting health risk information in different formats: The effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Pat Educ Couns. 2008, 73: 443-47. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.013.CrossRef
40.
Hill S, Spink J, Cadilhac D, Edwards A, Kaufman C, Rogers S, Ryan R, Tonkin A: Absolute risk representation in cardiovascular disease prevention: comprehension and preferences of health consumers and general practitioners involved in a focus group study. BMC Public Health. 2010, 10: 108-10.1186/1471-2458-10-108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Casscells W, Schoenberger A, Grayboys T: Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. N Engl J Med. 1978, 299: 999-1000. 10.1056/NEJM197811022991808.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S: Helping doctors and patients to make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2007, 8: 53-96.PubMed
43.
Kalet A, Roberts JC, Fletcher R: How do physicians talk with their patients about risks?. J Gen Intern Med. 1994, 9: 402-404. 10.1007/BF02629523.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Eichler K, Zoller M, Tschudi P, Steurer J: Barriers to apply cardiovascular prediction rules in primary care: a postal survey. BMC Fam Pract. 2007, 8: 1-10.1186/1471-2296-8-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Henneman L, Marteau TM, Timmermanns TRM: Clinical geneticists' and genetic counselors' views on the communication of genetic risks: a qualitative study. Pat Educ and Couns. 2008, 73: 42-49. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.009.CrossRef
46.
Neuner-Jehle S, Grueninger U, Hoesli R, Schmid M, Somaini B: A multidimensional health promoting counseling program in primary care setting: Coaching Your Health. Eur J Public Health. 2006, 16 (Suppl 1): 80-81.
47.
Hill Smith I, Mathie E, Little P: Involving patients in decisions about preventive medication: a focus group study. Prim Care Cardiovasc J. 2010, 3: 51-56. 10.3132/pccj.2010.006.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
How do family physicians communicate about cardiovascular risk? Frequencies and determinants of different communication formats
Authors
Stefan Neuner-Jehle
Oliver Senn
Odette Wegwarth
Thomas Rosemann
Johann Steurer
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2011
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-15

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

BMC Primary Care 1/2011 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Training family physicians and residents in family medicine in shared decision making to improve clinical decisions regarding the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections: protocol for a clustered randomized controlled trial

Research article

Infectious disease management in primary care: perceptions of GPs

Research article

General practitioners' experience and benefits from patient evaluations

Research article

Evaluation of job satisfaction of practice staff and general practitioners: an exploratory study

Research article

Pain, power and patience - A narrative study of general practitioners' relations with chronic pain patients

Research article

Knowledge of family health program practitioners in Brazil about sickle cell disease: a descriptive, cross-sectional study