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
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 6/2008

01-06-2008 | Perspectives

The Ethics of Information: Absolute Risk Reduction and Patient Understanding of Screening

Authors: Peter H. Schwartz, MD, PhD, Eric M. Meslin, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 6/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Some experts have argued that patients should routinely be told the specific magnitude and absolute probability of potential risks and benefits of screening tests. This position is motivated by the idea that framing risk information in ways that are less precise violates the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and its application in informed consent or shared decision-making. In this Perspective, we consider a number of problems with this view that have not been adequately addressed. The most important challenges stem from the danger that patients will misunderstand the information or have irrational responses to it. Any initiative in this area should take such factors into account and should consider carefully how to apply the ethical principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence.
Literature
1.
2.
Thornton H, Edwards A, Baum M. Women need better information about routine mammography. BMJ. 2003;327(7406):101–3, (July 10, 2003).PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):741–4, (Sep 27).PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Barratt A, Trevena L, Davey HM, McCaffery K. Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening. BMJ. 2004;329(7464):507–10, (Aug 28).PubMedCrossRef
7.
Thomson R, Edwards A, Grey J. Risk communication in the clinical consultation. Clin Med. 2005;5(5):465–9, (Sep–Oct).PubMed
8.
Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1):13–23, (Feb).PubMedCrossRef
9.
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, (August 26).PubMedCrossRef
10.
Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001:472.
11.
Braddock CH, Fihn SD, Levinson W, Jonsen AR, Pearlman RA. How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions informed decision making in the outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(6):339–45.PubMed
12.
Braddock CH III, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282(24):2313–20, (December 22).PubMedCrossRef
13.
Slaytor EK, Ward JE. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. BMJ. 1998;317(7153):263–4, (July 25).PubMed
14.
Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2004;328(7432):148, (January 17, 2004).PubMedCrossRef
15.
Chamot E, Perneger TV. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55(11):799–803, (November 1).PubMedCrossRef
16.
Domenighetti G, D’Avanzo B, Egger M, Berrino F, Perneger T, Mosconi P, et al. Women’s perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population-based survey in four countries [see comment]. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(5):816–21, (Oct).PubMedCrossRef
17.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ Jr, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291(1):71–8, (Jan 7).PubMedCrossRef
18.
Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986:408.
19.
Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med. 1999;17(4):285–94, (Nov).PubMedCrossRef
20.
Sieber WJ, Kaplan RM. Informed adherence: the need for shared medical decision making. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(5 Suppl):233S–40S, (Oct).PubMedCrossRef
21.
Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. A suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):56–66, (Jan).PubMedCrossRef
22.
Misselbrook D, Armstrong D. Patients’ responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension [see comment]. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(465):276–9, (Apr).PubMed
23.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information—a review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001;6(1):61–82, (Jan–Mar).PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Barratt A, Howard K, Irwig L, Salkeld G, Houssami N. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. BMJ. 2005;330(7497):936, (April 23).PubMedCrossRef
26.
Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ. 1998;317(7154):307–12, (Aug 1).PubMed
27.
Mandel JS, Church TR, Ederer F, Bond JH. Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(5):434–7, (Mar 3).PubMedCrossRef
28.
O’Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V, Tetroe J, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ. 1999;319(7212):731–4, (September 18, 1999).PubMed
29.
Skolbekken JA. Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs [see comment]. BMJ. 1998;316(7149):1956–8, (Jun 27).PubMed
30.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):966–72, (Dec 1).PubMed
31.
Vahabi M. The impact of health communication on health-related decision making: A review of evidence. Health Educ. 2007;107(1):27–41.CrossRef
32.
Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(11):884–92, (Nov).PubMedCrossRef
33.
Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):37–44, (Jan–Feb).
34.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The effectiveness of a primer to help people understand risk: two randomized trials in distinct populations. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(4):256–65, (February 20, 2007).PubMed
35.
Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med. 1998;73(5):538–40, (May).PubMedCrossRef
36.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ. 2002;324(7341):827–30, (April 6).PubMedCrossRef
37.
Hoffman JR, Wilkes MS, Day FC, Bell DS, Higa JK. The roulette wheel: an aid to informed decision making. PLoS Medicine. 2006;3(6), June 1.
38.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J Econom Soc. 1979;47(2):263–92, (Mar).
39.
Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Measuring patients’ preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(Suppl 1):i2–8, (Sep).PubMed
40.
Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:806–20.CrossRef
41.
McKenna FP. It won’t happen to me: unrealistic optimism or illusion of control? Br J Psychol. 1993;84(1):39–50.
42.
Baron J. Thinking and deciding, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000:570.
43.
Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve risk. A dual-processes approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004;13(2):60–6.CrossRef
44.
Lloyd AJ. The extent of patients’ understanding of the risk of treatments. Qual Saf Health Care. 2001;10:14i–8, (September 1).CrossRef
45.
O’Neill O. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002:228.
46.
Yarnall KSH, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–41, (April 1).PubMedCrossRef
47.
Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R, Sheridan SL, Braddock CH 3rd, Kaplan RM, et al. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(4):293–300, (Aug 16).PubMed
48.
Manson NC, O’Neill O. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007:226.
49.
Schneider CE. The practice of autonomy: patients, doctors, and medical decisions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998, (307).
50.
Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(2):102–14, (Feb).PubMedCrossRef
51.
Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA. Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4(1):23–30, (Jan–Feb).PubMedCrossRef
52.
Whitney SN. A new model of medical decisions: exploring the limits of shared decision making. Med Decis Mak. 2003;23(4):275–80, (July 1).CrossRef
53.
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, (January 6).PubMed
54.
Tauber AI. Patient autonomy and the ethics of responsibility. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005, P. (328).
55.
Adab P, Marshall T, Rouse A, Randhawa B, Sangha H, Bhangoo N. Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women’s willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(8):589–93, (August 1).PubMedCrossRef
56.
Wolf AMD, Schorling JB. Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(1):24–30.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Ethics of Information: Absolute Risk Reduction and Patient Understanding of Screening
Authors
Peter H. Schwartz, MD, PhD
Eric M. Meslin, PhD
Publication date
01-06-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 6/2008
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0616-y

Other articles of this Issue 6/2008

Journal of General Internal Medicine 6/2008 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Response to: Clarification of Issues Raised in the Editorial “A New Age for Cancer Information Seeking: Are We Better Off Now?”

Populations at Risk

Differences in the Patterns of Health Care System Distrust Between Blacks and Whites

Original Article

How Strategies for Managing Patient Visit Time Affect Physician Job Satisfaction: A Qualitative Analysis

Populations at Risk

Barriers to Screening Colonoscopy for Low-income Latino and White Patients in an Urban Community Health Center

Original Article

Effects of Military Trauma Exposure on Women Veterans’ Use and Perceptions of Veterans Health Administration Care

Updates

Update in Pain Medicine
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

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

Read more

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

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits