Search

Introduction: Despite decades of research on risk-communication approaches, questions remain about the optimal methods for conveying risks for different outcomes across multiple time points, which can be necessary in applications such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We sought to compare the effects of 3 design factors: 1) separated versus integrated presentations of the risks for different outcomes, 2) use or omission of icon arrays, and 3) vertical versus horizontal orientation of the time dimension. Methods: We conducted a randomized study among a demographically diverse sample of 2,242 US adults recruited from an online panel (mean age 59.8 y, s = 10.4 y; 21.9% African American) that compared risk-communication approaches that varied in the 3 factors noted above. The primary outcome was the number of correct responses to 12 multiple-choice questions asking survey respondents to identify specific numbers, contrast options to recognize dominance (larger v. smaller risks), and compute differences. We used linear regression to test the effects of the 3 design factors, controlling for health literacy, graph literacy, and numeracy. We also measured choice consistency in a subsequent DCE choice module Results: Mean comprehension varied significantly across versions (P < 0.001), with higher comprehension in the 3 versions that provided separated risk information for each risk. In the multivariable regression, separated risk presentation was associated with 0.58 more correct responses (P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.77) compared with integrated risk information. Neither providing icon arrays nor using vertical versus horizontal time formats affected comprehension rates, although participant understanding did correlate with DCE choice consistency. Conclusions: In presentations of multiple risks over multiple time points, presenting risk information separately for each health outcome appears to increase understanding. Highlights: When conveying information about risks of different outcomes at multiple time points, separate presentations of single-outcome risks resulted in higher comprehension than presentations that combined risk information for different outcomes. We also observed benefits of presenting single-outcome risks separately among respondents with lower numeracy and graph literacy. Study participants who scored higher on risk understanding were more internally consistent in their responses to a discrete choice experiment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data visualizations can be effective and inclusive means for helping people understand health-related data. Yet numerous high-quality studies comparing data visualizations have yielded relatively little practical design guidance because of a lack of clarity about what communicators want their audience to accomplish. When conducting rigorous evaluations of communication (eg, applying the ISO 9186 method), describing the process simply as evaluating "comprehension" or "interpretation" of visualizations fails to do justice to the true range of outcomes being studied. We present newly developed taxonomies of outcome measures and tasks that are guiding a large-scale systematic review of the health numbers communication literature. Using these taxonomies allows a designer to determine whether a specific data presentation format or feature supports or inhibits the desired audience cognitions, feelings, or behaviors. We argue that taking a granular, outcomes-based approach to designing and evaluating information visualization research is essential to deriving practical, actionable knowledge from it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While cancer screening guidelines increasingly recommend incorporating life expectancy estimates to inform screening decisions for older adults, little is known about how this happens in practice. This review summarizes current knowledge about primary care clinician and older adult (65+) perspectives about use of life expectancy to guide cancer screening decisions. Clinicians report operational barriers, uncertainty, and hesitation around use of life expectancy in screening decisions. They recognize it may help them more accurately weigh benefits and harms but are unsure how to estimate life expectancy for individual patients. Older adults face conceptual barriers and are generally unconvinced of the benefits of considering their life expectancy when making screening decisions. Life expectancy will always be a difficult topic for clinicians and patients, but there are advantages to incorporating it in cancer screening decisions. We highlight key takeaways from both clinician and older adult perspectives to guide future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Missed appointments ("no-shows") are a persistent and costly problem in healthcare. Appointment reminders are widely used but usually do not include messages specifically designed to nudge patients to attend appointments. Objective: To determine the effect of incorporating nudges into appointment reminder letters on measures of appointment attendance. Design: Cluster randomized controlled pragmatic trial. Patients: There were 27,540 patients with 49,598 primary care appointments, and 9420 patients with 38,945 mental health appointments, between October 15, 2020, and October 14, 2021, at one VA medical center and its satellite clinics that were eligible for analysis. Interventions: Primary care (n = 231) and mental health (n = 215) providers were randomized to one of five study arms (four nudge arms and usual care as a control) using equal allocation. The nudge arms included varying combinations of brief messages developed with veteran input and based on concepts in behavioral science, including social norms, specific behavioral instructions, and consequences of missing appointments. Main Measures: Primary and secondary outcomes were missed appointments and canceled appointments, respectively. Statistical Analysis: Results are based on logistic regression models adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, and clustering for clinics and patients. Key Results: Missed appointment rates in study arms ranged from 10.5 to 12.1% in primary care clinics and 18.0 to 21.9% in mental health clinics. There was no effect of nudges on missed appointment rate in primary care (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.96–1.36, p = 0.15) or mental health (OR = 1.20, 95%CI = 0.90–1.60, p = 0.21) clinics, when comparing the nudge arms to the control arm. When comparing individual nudge arms, no differences in missed appointment rates nor cancellation rates were observed. Conclusions: Appointment reminder letters incorporating brief behavioral nudges were ineffective in improving appointment attendance in VA primary care or mental health clinics. More complex or intensive interventions may be necessary to significantly reduce missed appointments below their current rates. Trial Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial number NCT03850431. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many people, especially those with low numeracy, are known to have difficulty interpreting and applying quantitative information to health decisions. These difficulties have resulted in a rich body of research about better ways to communicate numbers. Synthesizing this body of research into evidence‐based guidance, however, is complicated by inconsistencies in research terminology and researcher goals. In this article, we introduce three taxonomies intended to systematize terminology in the literature, derived from an ongoing systematic literature review. The first taxonomy provides a systematic nomenclature for the outcome measures assessed in the studies, including perceptions, decisions, and actions. The second taxonomy is a nomenclature for the data formats assessed, including numbers (and different formats for numbers) and graphics. The third taxonomy describes the quantitative concepts being conveyed, from the simplest (a single value at a single point in time) to more complex ones (including a risk‐benefit trade‐off and a trend over time). Finally, we demonstrate how these three taxonomies can be used to resolve ambiguities and apparent contradictions in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent trials suggest that aspirin for primary prevention may do more harm than good for some, including adults over 70 years of age. We sought to assess how primary care providers (PCPs) use aspirin for the primary prevention in older patients and to identify barriers to use according to recent guidelines, which recommend against routine use in patients over age 70. We surveyed PCPs about whether they would recommend aspirin in clinical vignettes of a 75-year-old patient with a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk of 25%. We also queried perceived difficulty following guideline recommendations, as well as perceived barriers and facilitators. We obtained responses from 372 PCPs (47.9% response). In the patient vignette, 45.4% of clinicians recommended aspirin use, which did not vary by whether the patient was using aspirin initially (p = 0.21); 41.7% believed aspirin was beneficial. Perceived barriers to guideline-based aspirin use included concern about patients being upset (41.6%), possible malpractice claims (25.0%), and not having a strategy for discussing aspirin use (24.5%). The estimated adjusted probability of rating the guideline as "hard to follow" was higher in clinicians who believed aspirin was beneficial (29.4% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001) and who worried the patient would be upset if told to stop aspirin (26.7% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.001). Internists vary considerably in their recommendations for aspirin use for primary prevention in older patients. A high proportion of PCPs continue to believe aspirin is beneficial in this setting. These results can inform de-implementation efforts to optimize evidence-based aspirin use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Parents who have to make tracheostomy decisions for their critically ill child may face forecasting errors and wish to learn from peer parents. We sought to develop an intervention with peer parent narratives to help parents anticipate and prepare for future challenges before making a decision.Methods: To ensure that the intervention reflects parents' needs (rather than experts' opinions), we adapted a user-centered design (UCD) process to identify decision-critical information and refine the presentation format by interviewing parents who had tracheostomy decision making experience. Phase 1 (n = 10) presented 15 possible forecasting errors and asked participants to prioritize and justify the problematic ones. It also asked participants to comment on the draft narratives and preferred delivery mode and time of the intervention. Phase 2 (n = 9 additional parents and 1 previous parent) iteratively collected feedback over four waves of user interviews to guide revisions to the informational booklet.Results: Phase 1 revealed that parents wanted information to address all forecasting errors as soon as tracheostomy becomes an option. They also highlighted diverse family situations and the importance of offering management strategies. The resulting prototype booklet contained five sections: introduction, child's quality of life, home care, practical challenges, and resources. Feedback from Phase 2 focused on emphasizing individualized situations, personal choice, seriousness of the decision, and caregiver health as well as presenting concrete illustrations of future challenges with acknowledgement of positive outcomes and advice. We also learned that parents preferred to use the booklet with support from the care team rather than read it alone.Conclusions: A UCD process enabled inclusion of parental perspectives that were initially overlooked and tailoring of the intervention to meet parental expectations. Similar UCD-based approaches may be valuable in the design of other types of patient communications (e.g., decision aids). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The phenomenon of ambiguity aversion suggests that people prefer options that offer precisely rather than imprecisely known chances of success. However, past work on people's responses to ambiguity in health treatment contexts found ambiguity seeking rather than aversion. The present work addressed whether such findings reflected a broad tendency for ambiguity seeking in health treatment contexts or whether specific attributions for ambiguity play a substantial role. In three studies, people choose between two treatment options that involved similar underlying probabilities, except that the probabilities for one option involved ambiguity. The attributions offered for the ambiguity played an important role in the results. For example, when the range of probabilities associated with an ambiguous treatment was attributed to the fact that different studies yield different results, participants tended to show ambiguity aversion or indifference. However, when the range was attributed to something that participants could control (e.g., regular application of a cream) or something about which they were overoptimistic (e.g., their immune system function), participants tended to show ambiguity seeking. Health professionals should be mindful of how people will interpret and use information about ambiguity when choosing among treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To the authors' knowledge, studies regarding risk perception among survivors of thyroid cancer are scarce.Methods: The authors surveyed patients who were diagnosed with differentiated thyroid cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County (2632 patients; 63% response rate). The analytic cohort was defined by a ≤5% risk of disease recurrence and mortality (1597 patients). Patients estimated their recurrence and mortality risks separately (increments of 10% and endpoints of ≤5% and ≥95%). Both outcomes were dichotomized between reasonably accurate estimates (risk perception of ≤5% or 10%) versus overestimation (risk perception of ≥20%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with risk overestimation, and the relationships between overestimation and both worry and quality of life were evaluated.Results: In the current study sample, 24.7% of patients overestimated their recurrence risk and 12.5% overestimated their mortality risk. A lower educational level was associated with overestimating disease recurrence (≤high school diploma: odds ratio [OR], 1.64 [95% CI, 1.16-2.31]; and some college: OR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.02-1.81]) and mortality (≤high school diploma: OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.93]) risk compared with those attaining at least a college degree. Hispanic ethnicity was found to be associated with overestimating recurrence risk (OR, 1.44, 95% CI 1.02-2.03) compared with their white counterparts. Worry about recurrence and death was found to be greater among patients who overestimated versus those who had a reasonably accurate estimate of their risk of disease recurrence and mortality, respectively (P < .001). Patients who overestimated mortality risk also reported a decreased physical quality of life (mean T score, 43.1; 95% CI, 41.6-44.7) compared with the general population.Conclusions: Less educated patients and Hispanic patients were more likely to report inaccurate risk perceptions, which were associated with worry and a decreased quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many health providers and communicators who are concerned that patients will not understand numbers instead use verbal probabilities (e.g., terms such as "rare" or "common") to convey the gist of a health message. Objective: To assess patient interpretation of and preferences for verbal probability information in health contexts. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of literature published through September 2020. Original studies conducted in English with samples representative of lay populations were included if they assessed health-related information and elicited either (a) numerical estimates of verbal probability terms or (b) preferences for verbal vs. quantitative risk information. Results: We identified 33 original studies that referenced 145 verbal probability terms, 45 of which were included in at least two studies and 19 in three or more. Numerical interpretations of each verbal term were extremely variable. For example, average interpretations of the term "rare" ranged from 7 to 21%, and for "common," the range was 34 to 71%. In a subset of 9 studies, lay estimates of verbal probability terms were far higher than the standard interpretations established by the European Commission for drug labels. In 10 of 12 samples where preferences were elicited, most participants preferred numerical information, alone or in combination with verbal labels. Conclusion: Numerical interpretation of verbal probabilities is extremely variable and does not correspond well to the numerical probabilities established by expert panels. Most patients appear to prefer quantitative risk information, alone or in combination with verbal labels. Health professionals should be aware that avoiding numeric information to describe risks may not match patient preferences, and that patients interpret verbal risk terms in a highly variable way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision making requires evidence to be conveyed to the patient in a way they can easily understand and compare. Patient decision aids facilitate this process. This article reviews the current evidence for how to present numerical probabilities within patient decision aids. Methods: Following the 2013 review method, we assembled a group of 9 international experts on risk communication across Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We expanded the topics covered in the first review to reflect emerging areas of research. Groups of 2 to 3 authors reviewed the relevant literature based on their expertise and wrote each section before review by the full authorship team. Results: Of 10 topics identified, we present 5 fundamental issues in this article. Although some topics resulted in clear guidance (presenting the chance an event will occur, addressing numerical skills), other topics (context/evaluative labels, conveying uncertainty, risk over time) continue to have evolving knowledge bases. We recommend presenting numbers over a set time period with a clear denominator, using consistent formats between outcomes and interventions to enable unbiased comparisons, and interpreting the numbers for the reader to meet the needs of varying numeracy. Discussion: Understanding how different numerical formats can bias risk perception will help decision aid developers communicate risks in a balanced, comprehensible manner and avoid accidental "nudging" toward a particular option. Decisions between probability formats need to consider the available evidence and user skills. The review may be useful for other areas of science communication in which unbiased presentation of probabilities is important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decision aid developers have to convey complex task-specific numeric information in a way that minimizes bias and promotes understanding of the options available within a particular decision. Whereas our companion paper summarizes fundamental issues, this article focuses on more complex, task-specific aspects of presenting numeric information in patient decision aids. Methods: As part of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards third evidence update, we gathered an expert panel of 9 international experts who revised and expanded the topics covered in the 2013 review working in groups of 2 to 3 to update the evidence, based on their expertise and targeted searches of the literature. The full panel then reviewed and provided additional revisions, reaching consensus on the final version. Results: Five of the 10 topics addressed more complex task-specific issues. We found strong evidence for using independent event rates and/or incremental absolute risk differences for the effect size of test and screening outcomes. Simple visual formats can help to reduce common judgment biases and enhance comprehension but can be misleading if not well designed. Graph literacy can moderate the effectiveness of visual formats and hence should be considered in tool design. There is less evidence supporting the inclusion of personalized and interactive risk estimates. Discussion: More complex numeric information. such as the size of the benefits and harms for decision options, can be better understood by using incremental absolute risk differences alongside well-designed visual formats that consider the graph literacy of the intended audience. More research is needed into when and how to use personalized and/or interactive risk estimates because their complexity and accessibility may affect their feasibility in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic's early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Parents who face goals-of-care tracheostomy decisions may lack an understanding of challenges affecting their child's and family's long-term quality of life (QOL) to accurately forecast possible outcomes for decision making. We sought to examine whether and how parents' narratives of the child's and family's long-term QOL influence parental tracheostomy decisions and forecasting. Method: We recruited US adult Amazon Mechanical Turk participants (N = 1966) who self-reported having a child (<6 y old) or planning a pregnancy within 5 y. Participants read a vignette about making a tracheostomy decision for their hypothetical neurologically impaired baby. They were randomized to 1 of the following 4 conditions: 1) Baby QOL narratives, 2) Family QOL narratives, 3) Baby QOL + Family QOL narratives, and 4) control: no narratives. They then made a decision about whether or not to pursue tracheostomy, forecasted their concerns about the baby's and family's QOL, reported their values and social norm beliefs about tracheostomy, comfort care, and parental medical decision making, and completed individual differences scales and demographics. Results: Controlling for individual characteristics, participants in the Baby QOL and Baby QOL + Family QOL conditions were less likely to choose tracheostomy as compared with the control (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38 and 0.25, respectively, P < 0.001). Fewer participants in the Family QOL condition chose tracheostomy compared with the control, but this difference was not statistically significant (OR = 0.70, P = 0.11). Moreover, narratives increased pessimistic forecasting, which was associated with less interest in tracheostomy. Conclusion: Narratives clarifying long-term implications of pursuing tracheostomy have the potential to influence forecasting and decisions. Narrative-based interventions may be valuable in other situations in which forecasting errors are common. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of omitting therapies in older women with breast cancer. Despite de-implementation guidelines, up to 65% of older women continue to receive one or more of these low-value services. Previous work has investigated the role of both provider and patient attitudes as barriers to de-implementation; however, the importance of the patient's maximizing–minimizing preferences within this context remains unclear. Methods: In this qualitative study, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with women ≥ 70 years of age without a previous diagnosis of breast cancer to elicit perspectives on breast cancer treatment in relation to their medical maximizing–minimizing preferences, as determined by the single-item maximizer–minimizer elicitation question (MM1). We used an interpretive description approach in analysis to produce a thematic survey. Results: Participants were relatively evenly distributed across the MM1 (minimizer, n = 8; neutral, n = 13; maximizer, n = 9). Despite being told of recommendations allowing for the safe omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy, maximizers consistently stated preferences for more medical intervention and aggressive therapies over minimizers and neutral individuals. Conclusion: Medical maximizing–minimizing preferences in older women correspond with preferences for breast cancer treatment options that guidelines identify as potentially unnecessary. Increased awareness of patient-level variability in maximizing–minimizing preferences may be valuable in developing optimal intervention strategies to reduce utilization of low-value care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current theories of risk perception point to the powerful role of emotion and the neglect of probabilistic information in the face of risk, but these tendencies differ across individuals. We propose a method for measuring individuals' emotional sensitivity to probability to assess how feelings about probabilities, rather than the probabilities themselves, influence decisions. Participants gave affective ratings (worry or excitement) to 14 risky events, each with a specified probability ranging from 1 in 10 to 1 in 10,000,000. For each participant, we regressed these emotional responses against item probabilities, estimating a slope (the degree to which emotional responses change with probability) and an intercept (the emotional reaction to an event with a fixed probability). These two parameters were treated as individual difference scores and included in models predicting reactions to several health risk scenarios. Both emotional sensitivity to probability (slope) and emotional reactivity to possibility (intercept) significantly predicted responses to these scenarios, above and beyond the predictive power of other well‐established individual difference measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prenatal genetic screening should be an informed, autonomous patient choice. Extrinsic factors which influence patient decision‐making threaten the ethical basis of prenatal genetic screening. Prior research in the area of medical decision‐making has identified that labeling may have unanticipated effects on patient perceptions and decision‐making processes. This Internet‐administered study explored the impact of option labeling on the noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) selections of US adults. A total of 1,062 participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and randomly assigned to one of three possible label sets reflecting provider‐derived and industry‐derived option labels used in prenatal screening. Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed option labeling had a statistically significant impact on the NIPS selections of study participants (p =.0288). Outcomes of the Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SWD) indicated option labels did not play a role in participant satisfaction with screening selection. The results of this study indicate a need for further evaluation of the impact NIPS option labeling has on patient screening decisions in real‐world clinical interactions. Clinical providers and testing laboratories offering NIPS should give careful consideration to the option labels used with prenatal screening so as to minimize influence on patient screening selection and decision‐making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of AIDS & Behavior is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The 10-item validated Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS-10) assesses patients' preferences for aggressive v. more passive approaches to health care. However, because many research or clinical situations do not allow for use of a 10-item scale, we developed a single-item maximizer-minimizer elicitation question (the MM1) based on our experiences describing the construct to patient groups, clinical researchers, and the public. In 2 large samples of US adults (N = 368 and N = 814), the correlation between MMS-10 scores and the MM1 was.52 and.60, respectively. Both measures were robust predictors of medical preferences in a set of 12 hypothetical scenarios, and both had strong (and roughly equivalent) associations with 7 self-report measures of health care utilization. Our results demonstrate that the MM1 is a valid, brief elicitation of maximizing-minimizing preferences that can be used in clinical or research contexts where the 10-item scale is infeasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. High-quality health decisions are often defined as those that are both evidence informed and values congruent. A values-congruent decision aligns with what matters to those most affected by the decision. Values clarification methods are intended to support values-congruent decisions, but their effects on values congruence are rarely evaluated. Methods. We tested 11 strategies, including the 3 most commonly used values clarification methods, across 6 between-subjects online randomized experiments in demographically diverse US populations (n 1 = 1346, n 2 = 456, n 3 = 840, n 4 = 1178, n 5 = 841, n 6 = 2033) in the same hypothetical decision. Our primary outcome was values congruence. Decisional conflict was a secondary outcome in studies 3 to 6. Results. Two commonly used values clarification methods (pros and cons, rating scales) reduced decisional conflict but did not encourage values-congruent decisions. Strategies using mathematical models to show participants which option aligned with what mattered to them encouraged values-congruent decisions and reduced decisional conflict when assessed. Limitations. A hypothetical decision was necessary for ethical reasons, as we believed some strategies may harm decision quality. Later studies used more outcomes and covariates. Results may not generalize outside US-based adults with online access. We assumed validity and stability of values during the brief experiments. Conclusions. Failing to explicitly support the process of aligning options with values leads to increased proportions of values-incongruent decisions. Methods representing more than half of values clarification methods commonly in use failed to encourage values-congruent decisions. Methods that use models to explicitly show people how options align with their values offer more promise for helping people make decisions aligned with what matters to them. Decisional conflict, while arguably an important outcome in and of itself, is not an appropriate proxy for values congruence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. People vary in their general preferences for more v. less health care, and the validated Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Scale (MMS) reliably measures this orientation. Medical maximizers (people scoring highly on the MMS) prefer to receive more health care visits, medications, tests, and treatments, whereas minimizers prefer fewer services. However, it is unclear how maximizing-minimizing preferences relate to willingness to pursue appropriate health care. We hypothesized that minimizers are at increased risk of rejecting evidence-based high-benefit care and that maximizers are at risk of wanting low-benefit care. Design. In total, 785 US adults recruited through an online panel expressed preferences to receive or forgo a health care intervention in 18 hypothetical scenarios. In 8 scenarios, the intervention was high benefit per evidence-based guidelines. In the remaining 10 scenarios, the intervention was low benefit. We assessed associations between participants' MMS score and their preferences for medical intervention in each scenario using regression analyses that adjusted for hypochondriasis, health risk tolerance, health status, and demographic variables. Results. MMS score was significantly associated with preferences in all 18 scenarios after adjusting for other variables. The MMS uniquely explained 11% of the variance in preferences for high-benefit care and 29% of the variance in preferences for low-benefit care. Differences between strong minimizers (10th percentile) and strong maximizers (90th percentile) across the 18 scenarios ranged from 5.6 to 32.3 points on a 1 to 100 preference scale. Conclusions. The MMS reliably predicts people's willingness to pursue appropriate care, both when appropriate care means taking high-benefit actions and when appropriate care means avoiding low-benefit actions. Targeting and tailoring messages according to maximizing-minimizing preferences might increase the effectiveness of both efforts to reduce overutilization of low-benefit services and campaigns to support uptake of high-benefit care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perceptions of infectious diseases are important predictors of whether people engage in disease‐specific preventive behaviors. Having accurate beliefs about a given infectious disease has been found to be a necessary condition for engaging in appropriate preventive behaviors during an infectious disease outbreak, while endorsing conspiracy beliefs can inhibit preventive behaviors. Despite their seemingly opposing natures, knowledge and conspiracy beliefs may share some of the same psychological motivations, including a relationship with perceived risk and self‐efficacy (i.e., control). The 2015–2016 Zika epidemic provided an opportunity to explore this. The current research provides some exploratory tests of this topic derived from two studies with similar measures, but different primary outcomes: one study that included knowledge of Zika as a key outcome and one that included conspiracy beliefs about Zika as a key outcome. Both studies involved cross‐sectional data collections that occurred during the same two periods of the Zika outbreak: one data collection prior to the first cases of local Zika transmission in the United States (March–May 2016) and one just after the first cases of local transmission (July–August). Using ordinal logistic and linear regression analyses of data from two time points in both studies, the authors show an increase in relationship strength between greater perceived risk and self‐efficacy with both increased knowledge and increased conspiracy beliefs after local Zika transmission in the United States. Although these results highlight that similar psychological motivations may lead to Zika knowledge and conspiracy beliefs, there was a divergence in demographic association. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. Patient portals of electronic health record systems currently present patients with tables of laboratory test results, but visual displays can increase patient understanding and sensitivity to result variations. We sought to assess physician preferences and concerns about visual display designs as potential motivators or barriers to their implementation. Methods. In an online survey, 327 primary care physicians (>50% patient care time) recruited through the online e-community/survey research firm SERMO compared hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test results presented in table format to various visual displays (number line formats) previously tested in public samples. Half of participants also compared additional visual formats displaying target goal ranges. Outcome measures included preferred display format and whether any displays were unacceptable, would change physician workload, or would induce liability concerns. Results. Most (85%–89%) respondents preferred visual displays over tables for result communications both to patients tested for diagnosis purposes and to diagnosed patients, with a design with color-coded categories most preferred. However, for each format (including tables), 11% to 23% rated them as unacceptable. Most respondents also preferred adding goal range information (in addition to standard ranges) for diagnosed patients. While most physicians anticipated no workload changes, 19% to 32% anticipated increased physician workload while 9% to 28% anticipated decreased workload. Between 32% and 40% had at least some liability concerns. Conclusions. Most primary care physicians prefer visual displays of HbA1c test results over table formats when communicating results to patients. However, workload and liability concerns from a minority of physicians represent a barrier for adoption of such designs in clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many components of decision science are relevant to clinical ethics practice. Decision science encourages thoughtful definition of options, clarification of information needs, and acknowledgement of the heterogeneity of people's experiences and underlying values. Attention to decision-making processes reminds participants in consultations that how decisions are made and how information is provided can change a choice. Decision science also helps reveal affective forecasting errors (errors in predictions about how one will feel in a future situation) that happen when people consider possible future health states and suggests strategies for correcting these and other kinds of biases. Implementation of decision science innovations is not always feasible or appropriate in ethics consultations, but their uses increase the likelihood that an ethics consultation process will generate choices congruent with patients' and families' values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People are increasingly able to access their laboratory results via patient portals. The potential benefits provided by such access, such as reductions in patient burden and improvements in patient satisfaction, disease management, and medical decision making, also come with potentially valid concerns about such results causing confusion or anxiety among patients. However, it is possible to clearly convey the meaning of results and, when needed, indicate required action by designing systems to present laboratory results adapted to the people who will use them. Systems should support people in converting the potentially meaningless data of results into meaningful information and actionable knowledge. We offer 10 recommendations toward this goal: (1) whenever possible, provide a clear takeaway message for each result. (2) Signal whether differences are meaningful or not. (3) When feasible, provide thresholds for concern and action. (4) Individualize the frame of reference by allowing custom reference ranges. (5) Ensure the system is accessible. (6) Provide conversion tools along with results. (7) Design in collaboration with users. (8) Design for both new and experienced users. (9) Make it easy for people use the data as they wish. (10) Collaborate with experts from relevant fields. Using these 10 methods and strategies renders access to laboratory results into meaningful and actionable communication. In this way, laboratories and medical systems can support patients and families in understanding and using their laboratory results to manage their health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation of precision oncology interventions poses several challenges to informed consent and patient education. This study assessed cancer patients' understanding, expectations, and outcomes regarding participation in research examining the impact of matched tumor and germline sequencing on their clinical care. Methods: A total of 297 patients (mean age: 59 years; 50% female; 96% white) with refractory, metastatic cancer were surveyed, including 217 who completed surveys both before and after undergoing integrated whole exome and transcriptome sequencing as part of a larger clinical research study. Results: At baseline, the vast majority of patients expected to receive several potential direct benefits from study participation, including written reports of sequencing findings (88%), greater understanding of the causes of their cancer (74%), and participation in clinical trials for which sequencing results would make them eligible (84%). In most cases, these benefits were not realized by study completion. Despite explanations from study personnel to the contrary, most participants (67%‐76%) presumed that incidental germline sequencing findings relevant to noncancerous health conditions (eg, diabetes) would automatically be disclosed to them. Patients reported low levels of concern about study risks at baseline and low levels of regret about study participation at follow‐up. Conclusions: Findings suggest that cancer patients participating in precision oncology intervention research have largely unfulfilled expectations of direct benefits related to their study participation. Increased focus on patient education to supplement the informed consent process may help manage patients' expectations regarding the extent and likelihood of benefits received as a result of undergoing genomic sequencing. This study assessed cancer patients' understanding and expectations regarding participation in research examining the impact of matched tumor and germline sequencing on their clinical care. Findings suggest that cancer patients participating in precision oncology intervention research have largely unfulfilled expectations of direct benefits related to their study participation. Increased focus on patient education to supplement the informed consent process may help manage patients' expectations regarding the extent and likelihood of benefits received as a result of undergoing genomic sequencing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vaccine hesitancy has been little studied in low- and middle-income countries but is a potential concern because vaccine refusal may increase the burden of infectious diseases and impede control efforts. The aim of this study was to compare vaccine hesitancy between locals, long-time city residents, and non-locals, who have more recently moved to the city from either other urban or rural areas, in Shanghai, China. Methods: Parents of infants ≤3 months of age were surveyed at immunization clinics in Shanghai, China. Participants completed a paper questionnaire utilizing the 10-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale, which was developed by the World Health Organization Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization. Items were grouped based on internal consistency, and regressed onto demographic variables using a negative binomial model. Results: In total, 1,188 (92.5%) individuals participated. For most items on the scale, parents expressed positive beliefs about vaccines. However, about half of parents somewhat or strongly agreed that new vaccines carried more risks than older vaccines, and 71.6% somewhat or strongly agreed that they were concerned about serious adverse effects. Seven items from the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale were highly correlated and mapped onto “lack of confidence”; the other three items were analysed separately. Compared to mothers, fathers had less lack of confidence (β: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.12, -0.01), and individuals living in the outer suburbs (β: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.25) and rural non-locals (β: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.18) had greater lack of confidence in vaccines compared to their urban or local counterparts, respectively. Discussion: Shanghai parents professed confidence in certain vaccine benefits, but vaccine messaging could focus on addressing misconceptions about vaccines for diseases no longer common, newer vaccines, and adverse effects associated with vaccination. These messages may need to be separately tailored to locals and non-locals, who have differing concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic writers and presenters need concrete activities to help them learn how to communicate more effectively. We describe such a tool, called “Half-Life Your Message,” which is adapted from a commonly used improvisational theater game and can be applied in three minutes to distill a central thesis for any communication effort. Users can increase the value provided by Half-Life Your Message by scaffolding its application with an introduction and opportunity to self-reflect and debrief. We emphasize the tool’s utility based on our experiences in using it ourselves and in teaching it to undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: aging; consumer health; health services research; patient engagement; survey research For example, 7 in 10 US primary care physicians feel that patient requests for tests and treatments are a major barrier to reducing overuse.[3] However, little is known about patient perceptions of overuse, or how these perceptions may differ across patients. Survey respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that "when it comes to medical treatment, more is usually better" (5-point scale),[4] "health care providers in general often recommend medications, tests, or procedures that patients do not really need" (4-point scale), and "my own health care provider often recommends medications, tests or procedures that I do not really need" (4-point scale). Contrary to the majority view among clinicians that patients' requests drive overuse, we found that few older US adults agree that more treatment is usually better and over half agree that clinicians often order unneeded services. [Extracted from the article]

Health journalists frequently use narratives to bring news stories to life, with little understanding about how this influences the health behavior of readers. This study was designed to examine the effect of a New York Times health news article about a person who developed a life-threatening illness after using ibuprofen on readers’ future use of ibuprofen. We recruited an Internet sample (N = 405) to participate in a longitudinal study examining ibuprofen use before, immediately following, and two weeks after reading the story. Ibuprofen use two-weeks after reading the heath news article was significantly lower than baseline use. Furthermore, intentions to use ibuprofen were also significantly reduced suggesting that the observed behavior change may persist beyond the two-week period studied. Health journalists should be cautious in their use of stories about health outcomes, particularly when those stories deviate from data about objective risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The recently developed Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS) assesses individual differences in preferences for active v. passive medical treatment. We hypothesized that men’s maximizing-minimizing preferences might have relevance in the case of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, since there is considerable variability in men’s preference for being screened even among men who are informed that harm is more likely than benefit. The current research examined whether MMS preferences predict how men respond to didactic information and narrative stories about PSA screening. Design: US men 40+ years old (N = 1208) participated in an online survey. Men viewed information about PSA screening in 3 phases and provided their preference for screening after each phase. Phase 1 described what PSA screening is. Phase 2 added didactic information about screening risks and benefits. Phase 3 added narrative stories; men were randomized to receive stories about 1) physical harm, 2) emotional harm, 3) overdiagnosis, or 4) all 3 stories. Participants also completed the validated MMS. Results: After receiving basic information, 76.8% of men wanted PSA screening. After receiving information about risks and benefits, 54.8% wanted screening (a significant reduction, P < 0.001). Men who changed their preferences were significantly more likely to be minimizers than maximizers; most men with maximizing tendencies wanted screening after both the didactic information and narratives, whereas most men with minimizing tendencies did not want the test after receiving information. Conclusions: Men who prefer a more minimizing approach to medicine are more responsive to evidence supporting limiting or forgoing screening than men who prefer a maximizing approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chinese parents have access to domestic and foreign vaccines for their children. Their vaccine preferences are unclear, especially given recent pharmaceutical quality scandals and widely held beliefs deriving from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). This study characterized parental beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of Chinese and foreign vaccines. Methods: In May 2014, caregivers of young children at public immunization clinics in Shanghai, China, responded to a survey on vaccine perceptions. The two outcomes (differential belief in the effectiveness and safety of foreign vs domestic vaccines) were separately regressed onto demographic predictors in multinomial logistic regression models. Results: Among 618 caregivers, 56% thought the effectiveness of domestic and foreign vaccines were comparable; 33% thought domestic were more effective and 11% foreign. Two-thirds thought foreign and domestic vaccines had similar safety; 11% thought domestic were safer and 21% thought foreign were safer. Compared to college graduates, those with a high school education or less had greater odds of believing domestic vaccines were more effective, and also had greater odds of believing imported vaccines were safer. Greater trust in TCM was not associated with differential beliefs in the effectiveness or safety of domestic vs foreign vaccines. Conclusions: Although there is no evidence that foreign and domestic vaccines differ in either effectiveness or safety, less educated caregivers in China (but not those with greater trust in TCM) appear to believe such differences exist. Further exploration of the causes of these beliefs may be necessary in order to optimize vaccine communications in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: How can we use stories from other people to promote better health experiences, improve judgments about health, and increase the quality of medical decisions without introducing bias, systematically persuading the listeners to change their attitudes, or altering behaviors in nonoptimal ways? More practically, should narratives be used in health education, promotion, or behavior change interventions?Method: In this article, we address these questions by conducting a narrative review of a diverse body of literature on narratives from several disciplines to gain a better understanding about what narratives do, including their role in communication, engagement, recall, persuasion, and health behavior change. We also review broad theories about information processing and persuasion from psychology and more specific models about narrative messaging found in the health communication and marketing literatures to provide insight into the processes by which narratives have their effect on health behavior.Results: To address major gaps in our theoretical understanding about how narratives work and what effects they will have on health behavior, we propose the Narrative Immersion Model, whose goal is to identify the parameters that predict the specific impact of a particular narrative (e.g. persuade, inform, comfort, etc.) based on the type of narrative message (e.g. process, experience, or outcome narrative). Further, the Narrative Immersion Model describes the magnitude of the effect as increasing through successive layers of engagement with the narrative: interest, identification, and immersion. Finally, the Narrative Immersion Model identifies characteristics of the narrative intervention that encourage greater immersion within a given narrative.Conclusions: We believe there are important communication gaps in areas areas of behavioral medicine that could be addressed with narratives; however, more work is needed in order to employ narrative messaging systematically. The Narrative Immersion Model advances our theoretical understanding about narrative processing and its subsequent effects on knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While family history (FH) collection is a core responsibility of pediatric primary care providers (PCPs), few details about this practice are known. We surveyed a random national sample of 1200 pediatricians and family medicine physicians about FH collection practices. A total of 86% of respondents (n = 289 pediatricians; n = 152 family medicine physicians) indicated that they collect a FH “always” or “most of the time” with 77% reporting collection at the first visit, regardless of whether it is a health maintenance or problem-focused visit. Less than half ask about relatives other than parents, siblings, or grandparents (36.3%). Among respondents, 42% routinely update the FH at every health maintenance visit while 6% updated FH at every visit. Pediatric PCPs use a variety of methods to collect a FH that is limited in scope and variably updated. Our results suggest that interventions are needed to help pediatric PCPs collect a systematic, efficient, and updated FH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats is ethically desirable but challenging due to its tendency to promote avoidance of choice options with unknown probabilities-a phenomenon known as "ambiguity aversion." This study examined this phenomenon's potential magnitude, its responses to different communication strategies, and its mechanisms. In a factorial experiment, 2701 adult laypersons in Spain read one of three versions of a hypothetical newspaper article describing a pandemic vaccine-preventable disease (VPD), but varying in scientific uncertainty about VPD risk and vaccine effectiveness: No-Uncertainty, Uncertainty, and Normalized-Uncertainty (emphasizing its expected nature). Vaccination intentions were lower for the Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups compared to the No-Uncertainty group, consistent with ambiguity aversion; Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups did not differ. Ambiguity-averse responses were moderated by health literacy and mediated by perceptions of vaccine effectiveness, VPD likelihood, and VPD severity. Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats warrants caution and further research to elucidate its outcomes, mechanisms, and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amount of information produced by genomic sequencing is vast, technically complicated, and can be difficult to interpret. Appropriately tailoring genomic information for non-geneticists is an essential next step in the clinical use of genomic sequencing. To initiate development of a framework for genomic results communication, we conducted eighteen qualitative interviews with oncologists who had referred adult cancer patients to a matched tumor-normal tissue genomic sequencing study. In our qualitative analysis, we found varied levels of clinician knowledge relating to sequencing technology, the scope of the tumor genomic sequencing study, and incidental germline findings. Clinicians expressed a perceived need for more genetics education. Additionally, they had a variety of suggestions for improving results reports and possible resources to aid in results interpretation. Most clinicians felt genetic counselors were needed when incidental germline findings were identified. Our research suggests that more consistent genetics education is imperative in ensuring the proper utilization of genomic sequencing in cancer care. Clinician suggestions for results interpretation resources and results report modifications could be used to improve communication. Clinicians’ perceived need to involve genetic counselors when incidental germline findings were found suggests genetic specialists could play a critical role in ensuring patients receive appropriate follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective:Little is known about the affective implications of communicating negative information about medical tests. This research explored how affective processes – particularly the Affect Heuristic and cancer anxiety – influence the way in which people respond to such information. Design:Participants received different types of information about PSA screening for prostate cancer and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for migraine headaches. This was a 2 (Test harm information: present vs. absent) × 2 (Test benefit information: present vs. absent) × 2 (Test recommendation: present vs. absent) between-participants design. Outcome Measures:Perceived risk, perceived benefit and general attitudes towards PSA and MRI testing, cancer anxiety, preferences to receive the tests vs. not. Results:As predicted by the Affect Heuristic, test harm information reduced perceived test benefits. However, information about uncertain test benefit did not increase perceived test risks. Information about the test reduced cancer anxiety, indicating defensive coping. These variables – affect, anxiety, perceived risks and benefits – all uniquely predicted test preferences. Conclusion:Affective processes play an important role in how people respond to and interpret negative information about medical tests. Information about harms and information about the lack of benefit can both make a test seem less beneficial, and will reduce cancer anxiety as a result. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background. Breast cancer patients’ misunderstanding of their systemic cancer recurrence risk has consequences on decision-making and quality of life. Little is known about how women derive their risk estimates. Methods. Using Los Angeles and Georgia’s SEER registries (2014–2015), a random sample of early-stage breast cancer patients was sent surveys about 2 to 3 months after surgery (N = 3930; RR, 68%). We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses about why women chose their risk estimates in a uniquely large sub-sample (N = 1,754). Clinician estimates of systemic recurrence risk were provided for patient sub-groups with DCIS and with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk invasive disease. Women’s perceived risk of systemic recurrence (0% to 100%) was categorized as overestimation, reasonably accurate estimation, or underestimation (0% for invasive disease) and was compared across identified factors and by clinical presentation. Results. Women identified 9 main factors related to their clinical experience (e.g., diagnosis and testing; treatment) and non-clinical beliefs (e.g., uncertainty; spirituality). Women who mentioned at least one clinical experience factor were significantly less likely to overestimate their risk (12% v. 43%, P < 0.001). Most women who were influenced by “communication with a clinician” had reasonably accurate recurrence estimates (68%). “Uncertainty” and “family and personal history” were associated with overestimation, particularly for women with DCIS (75%; 84%). “Spirituality, religion, and faith” was associated with an underestimation of risk (63% v. 20%, P < 0.001). Limitations. The quantification of our qualitative results is subject to any biases that may have occurred during the coding process despite rigorous methodology. Conclusions. Patient-clinician communication is important for breast cancer patients’ understanding of their numeric risk of systemic recurrence. Clinician discussions about recurrence risk should address uncertainty and relevance of family and personal history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]