...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making >Laypersons' understanding of relative risk reductions: Randomised cross-sectional study
【24h】

Laypersons' understanding of relative risk reductions: Randomised cross-sectional study

机译：外行对相对风险降低的理解：随机横断面研究

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background Despite increasing recognition of the importance of involving patients in decisions on preventive healthcare interventions, little is known about how well patients understand and utilise information provided on the relative benefits from these interventions. The aim of this study was to explore whether lay people can discriminate between preventive interventions when effectiveness is presented in terms of relative risk reduction (RRR), and whether such discrimination is influenced by presentation of baseline risk. Methods The study was a randomised cross-sectional interview survey of a representative sample (n = 1,519) of lay people with mean age 59 (range 40–98) years in Denmark. In addition to demographic information, respondents were asked to consider a hypothetical drug treatment to prevent heart attack. Its effectiveness was randomly presented as RRR of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 percent, and half of the respondents were presented with quantitative information on the baseline risk of heart attack. The respondents had also been asked whether they were diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia or had experienced a heart attack. Results In total, 873 (58%) of the respondents consented to the hypothetical treatment. While 49% accepted the treatment when RRR = 10%, the acceptance rate was 58–60% for RRR>10. There was no significant difference in acceptance rates across respondents irrespective of whether they had been presented with quantitative information on baseline risk or not. Conclusion In this study, lay people's decisions about therapy were only slightly influenced by the magnitude of the effect when it was presented in terms of RRR. The results may indicate that lay people have difficulties in discriminating between levels of effectiveness when they are presented in terms of RRR.
机译：背景技术尽管人们越来越认识到让患者参与预防性医疗干预措施的决策的重要性，但对于患者如何理解和利用有关这些干预措施相对益处的信息知之甚少。这项研究的目的是探讨当以相对危险度降低（RRR）表示有效性时，非专业人士是否可以区分预防性干预措施，以及这种歧视是否受基线风险的影响。方法该研究是对丹麦平均年龄59（40-98岁）的外行人的代表性样本（n = 1,519）进行的随机横断面访谈调查。除了人口统计信息外，还要求受访者考虑使用假想的药物治疗来预防心脏病发作。它的有效性随机显示为RRR分别为10％，20％，30％，40％，50％或60％，一半的受访者获得了有关心脏病发作基线风险的定量信息。还询问了受访者他们是否被诊断患有高胆固醇血症或经历过心脏病发作。结果总共有873名（58％）的受访者同意该假设治疗。当RRR = 10％时有49％接受治疗，而RRR> 10时接受率为58–60％。无论接受调查者是否已获得有关基线风险的定量信息，接受者之间的接受率均无显着差异。结论在这项研究中，以RRR表示时，外行人对治疗的决定仅受到影响程度的轻微影响。结果可能表明，当以存款准备金率表示非专业人士时，他们很难区分有效性水平。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号