Search

Background: Shared decision-making and patients' choice of interventions are areas of increasing importance, not least seen in the light of the fact that chronic conditions are increasing, interventions considered important for public health, and still non-acceptance of especially risk-reducing treatments of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is prevalent. A better understanding of patients' medication-taking behavior is needed and may be reached by studying the reasons why people accept or decline medication recommendations. The aim of this paper was to identify factors that may influence people's decisions and reasoning for accepting or declining a cardiovascular preventive medication offer., Methods: From a random sample of 4,000 people aged 40-59 years in a Danish population, 1,169 participants were asked to imagine being at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and being offered a preventive medication. After receiving 'complete' information about effectiveness of the medication they were asked whether they would accept medication. Finally, they were asked about reasons for the decision., Results: A total of 725 (67%) of 1,082 participants accepted the medication offer. Even quite large effects of medication (up to 8 percentage points absolute risk reduction) had a smaller impact on acceptance to medication than personal experience with cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, increasing age of the participant and living with a partner were significantly associated with acceptance. Some 45% of the respondents accepting justified their choice as being for health reasons, and they were more likely to be women, live alone, have higher income and higher education levels. Among those who did not accept the medication offer, 56% indicated that they would rather prefer to change lifestyle., Conclusions: Medication effectiveness seems to have a moderate influence on people's decisions to accept preventive medication, while factors such as personal experience with cardiovascular disease may have an equally strong or stronger influence, indicating that practitioners could do well to carefully identify the reasons for their patients' treatment decisions.

Introduction: Statistics and a good understanding of numbers are important professional tools for doctors in order to understand and communicate risk estimates., Materials and Methods: In this questionnaire survey carried out among 129 specialist trainees the ability to calculate and compare risk values (Relative Risk Reduction, Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat and a combination of these) was examined along with the general understanding of numbers in relation to probabilities., Results: The survey showed that 69% of the participants were able to calculate a risk reduction accurately. Answers from the respondents did not depend on whether information was given as absolute or relative risk reductions. 13% of the participants were able to correctly estimate the risk of a false positive answer in connection with screening., Conclusion: The trainee doctors demonstrated a surprisingly poor ability to make basic probability calculations and a poor understanding of screening results. A thorough understanding of risk measures as well as basic probabilities is a prerequisite for good objective patient information. This survey indicates that there is considerable room for improvement in these areas.

Background: Uncertainty and risk are central issues in relation to health and health care services. Healthy individuals do not necessarily fall ill, despite the presence of risk factors. It has been documented that doctors, health service administrators and patients are more inclined to choose interventions against risk factors when information about the effects is presented in terms of relative risk reductions rather than absolute risk reductions., Objectives: The objective of the study was to gain better insight into how GPs perceive risk of disease, and how this perception is influenced by the way the risk is presented, e.g. whether changes in risk are presented in absolute or relative terms., Methods: Questionnaires with clinical episodes were sent to 1500 Danish GPs. The GPs were randomized into four groups of 375, who all received the same case story with information about risk reduction achieved through medical treatment phrased in terms of either relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat or all of the aforementioned terms of risk reduction. The GPs were asked whether they would recommend medical treatment as primary prevention, knowing the case story and expected risk reduction., Results: The GPs' attitude towards recommending medical treatment was dependent on the phrasing of risk reductions. Seventy-two per cent of doctors who received all information on risk reductions would definitely or probably recommend medication, while 91% would recommend medication if information only about relative risk reduction was given, and 63% would recommend medication if information was given in terms of absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat., Conclusion: In order to advise patients in a rational way, in addition to knowledge of the patients' preferences, doctors need to take into account all available measures of risk reductions.

This article analyzes preferences for risk reductions in the context of individual and societal decision making. The effect of information on baseline risk is analyzed in both contexts. The results indicate that if individuals are to imagine that they suffer from 1 low-risk and 1 high-risk ailment, and are offered a specified identical absolute risk reduction, a majority will ceteris paribus opt for treatment of the low-risk ailment. A different preference structure is elicited when priority questions are framed as social choices. Here, a majority will prefer to treat the high-risk group of patients. The preference reversal demonstrates the extent to which baseline risk information can influence preferences in different choice settings. It is argued that presentation of baseline risk information may induce framing effects that lead to nonoptimal resource allocations. A solution to this problem may be to not present group-specific baseline risk information when eliciting preferences.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate reasons for insomnia symptoms and their associations with sleep medication prescription in elderly patients in general practice. Design: Over a period of 20 weekdays, general practitioners (GPs) recorded reasons and treatment for insomnia symptoms. Patient characteristics and outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics. Logistic regression was used to analyse the associations between reasons for insomnia symptoms and prescription. Setting: General practices in the Region of Southern Denmark. Subjects: Consultations (n = 405) with patients older than 65 years presenting with insomnia symptoms. Main outcome measures: Reasons for insomnia symptoms and sleep medication prescription. Results: The most commonly reported reasons for insomnia symptoms were somatic illness (34%) and psychiatric diagnosis (29%). Having a psychiatric diagnosis or multiple reported reasons for insomnia increased the odds for prescription (odds ratio (OR) 4.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.41-9.90 and OR 2.10, CI 1.03-4.28), whereas being first consultation regarding insomnia symptoms decreased the odds (OR 0.17, CI 0.10-0.30). A total of 80% received a prescription, most frequently of Z-hypnotics (49%). About half (52%) of the patients consulting their GP for the first time with insomnia symptoms received a prescription. Conclusion: Somatic and psychiatric diseases were the most commonly reported reasons for insomnia symptoms in the elderly, suggesting a high prevalence of comorbid insomnia. Regardless of reason, a majority of the consultations resulted in prescription of sleep medication with potential serious adverse effects. This indicates that there is still room for improving the management of insomnia among older adults. Key Points Although insomnia is common in the elderly, little is known about its reasons and their associations with prescription patterns. The most commonly reported reasons for insomnia symptoms in the elderly are psychiatric diagnosis and somatic illness. According to guidelines, sleep medication with potential serious adverse effects is prescribed too frequently to elderly patients. An effort should be made to identify and optimally treat comorbid insomnia, which appears to be prevalent in older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is important that patients are well-informed about risks and benefits of therapies to help them decide whether to accept medical therapy. Different numerical formats can be used in risk communication but It remains unclear how the different formats affect decisions made by real-life patients.Aim: To compare the impact of using Prolongation Of Life (POL) and Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) information formats to express effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy on patients' redemptions of statin prescriptions, and on patients' confidence in their decision and satisfaction with the risk communication.Design and Setting: Cluster-randomised clinical trial in general practices. Thirty-four Danish GPs from 23 practices participated in a primary care-based clinical trial concerning use of quantitative effectiveness formats for risk communication in health prevention consultations.Method: GPs were cluster-randomised (treating practices as clusters) to inform patients about cardiovascular mortality risk and the effectiveness of statin treatment using either POL or ARR formats. Patients' redemptions of statin prescriptions were obtained from a regional prescription database. The COMRADE questionnaire was used to measure patients' confidence in their decision and satisfaction with the risk communication.Results: Of the 240 patients included for analyses, 112 were allocated to POL information and 128 to ARR. Patients redeeming a statin prescription totalled six (5.4%) when informed using POL, and 32 (25.0%) when using ARR. The level of confidence in decision and satisfaction with risk communication did not differ between the risk formats.Conclusion: Patients redeemed statin prescriptions less often when their GP communicated treatment effectiveness using POL compared with ARR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Graphic representation was used to explore to what extent the number needed to treat (NNT) conveys the appropriate notion of benefit for the individual patient in interventions aimed at delaying adverse events. A sample of the Danish population (n = 675) was interviewed face to face, and asked whether they would consent to a hypothetical drug that reduces the risk of heart attack. The benefit of the drug was expressed in terms of NNT and was randomly set at 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 400. NNT does not convey information on the proportion of patients being helped by an intervention or the size of the delay of the adverse event intended to be prevented. The proportion of people consenting to the hypothetical drug was about 80%, irrespective of NNT, and some of those who rejected the drug misinterpreted the meaning of NNT. Lay people may have difficulties in understanding the meaning of NNT, and clinicians may do well to use the NNT with caution until more is known about how patients comprehend it. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]