Abstract
BACKGROUND: The medical profession is often presented with information on the value of treatment in terms of likely risk reduction. If this same information was presented to patients--so enabling them to give proper informed consent--would this affect their decision to be treated? AIM: To examine patients' choice about treatment in response to different forms of risk presentation. DESIGN OF STUDY: Postal questionnaire study. SETTING: The questionnaire was sent to 102 hypertensive patients and 207 matched non-hypertensive patients aged between 35 and 65 years in a UK general practice. METHODS: Patients were asked the likelihood, on a four-point scale, of their accepting treatment for a chronic condition (mild hypertension) on the basis of relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, and personal probability of benefit. RESULTS: An 89% response rate was obtained. Of these, 92% would accept treatment using a relative risk reduction model, 75% would accept treatment using an absolute risk reduction model, 68% would accept treatment using a number needed to treat model, and 44% would accept treatment with a personal probability of benefit model. CONCLUSION: Many patients may prefer not to take treatment for mild hypertension if the risks were fully explained. However, given that the form of the explanation has a strong influence on the patient's decision, it is not clear how decision-making can be fully shared nor what should constitute informed consent to treatment in this situation.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (66.4 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bucher H. C., Weinbacher M., Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ. 1994 Sep 24;309(6957):761–764. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6957.761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chatellier G., Zapletal E., Lemaitre D., Menard J., Degoulet P. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful nomogram in its proper context. BMJ. 1996 Feb 17;312(7028):426–429. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7028.426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cook R. J., Sackett D. L. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995 Feb 18;310(6977):452–454. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6977.452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fagard R., Staessen J., Thijs L., Amery A. Influence of antihypertensive drugs on exercise capacity. Drugs. 1993;46 (Suppl 2):32–36. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199300462-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fahey T., Newton J. Conveying the benefits and risks of treatment. Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Jul;45(396):339–341. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haynes R. B., Sackett D. L., Taylor D. W., Gibson E. S., Johnson A. L. Increased absenteeism from work after detection and labeling of hypertensive patients. N Engl J Med. 1978 Oct 5;299(14):741–744. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197810052991403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hux J. E., Naylor C. D. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making. 1995 Apr-Jun;15(2):152–157. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jachuck S. J., Brierley H., Jachuck S., Willcox P. M. The effect of hypotensive drugs on the quality of life. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1982 Feb;32(235):103–105. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Malenka D. J., Baron J. A., Johansen S., Wahrenberger J. W., Ross J. M. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Oct;8(10):543–548. doi: 10.1007/BF02599636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marteau T. M. Screening in practice: Reducing the psychological costs. BMJ. 1990 Jul 7;301(6742):26–28. doi: 10.1136/bmj.301.6742.26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McNeil B. J., Pauker S. G., Sox H. C., Jr, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982 May 27;306(21):1259–1262. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198205273062103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- O'Connor A. M., Pennie R. A., Dales R. E. Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects experienced: the case of influenza immunization. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Nov;49(11):1271–1276. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00177-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Prisant L. M., Carr A. A., Bottini P. B., Solursh D. S., Solursh L. P. Sexual dysfunction with antihypertensive drugs. Arch Intern Med. 1994 Apr 11;154(7):730–736. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sever P., Beevers G., Bulpitt C., Lever A., Ramsay L., Reid J., Swales J. Management guidelines in essential hypertension: report of the second working party of the British Hypertension Society. BMJ. 1993 Apr 10;306(6883):983–987. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6883.983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shaper A. G., Pocock S. J., Walker M., Phillips A. N., Whitehead T. P., Macfarlane P. W. Risk factors for ischaemic heart disease: the prospective phase of the British Regional Heart Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1985 Sep;39(3):197–209. doi: 10.1136/jech.39.3.197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smith G. D., Egger M. Who benefits from medical interventions? BMJ. 1994 Jan 8;308(6921):72–74. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6921.72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stoate H. G. Can health screening damage your health? J R Coll Gen Pract. 1989 May;39(322):193–195. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]