Risk communication in cataract surgery.

IF 2.2 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY BMJ Open Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001613
Diana Lucia Martinez, Iqbal Ike K Ahmed, Matthew B Schlenker
{"title":"Risk communication in cataract surgery.","authors":"Diana Lucia Martinez, Iqbal Ike K Ahmed, Matthew B Schlenker","doi":"10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Risk communication is an integral aspect of shared decision-making and evidence-based patient choice. There is currently no recommended way of communicating risks and benefits of cataract surgery to patients. This study aims to investigate whether the way this information is presented influences patients' perception of how risky surgery will be.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>Two-arm parallel randomised study and patients referred for cataract surgery were assigned to receive information framed either positively (99% chance of no adverse effects) or negatively (1% chance of adverse effects). Subsequently, patients rated their perceived risk of experiencing surgical side effects on a 1-6 scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 100 patients, 50 in each study group. Median (IQR) risk perception was 2 (1-2) in the positive framing group and 3 (1-3) in the negative framing group (p<0.0001). Risk framing was the only factor that was significant in risk perception, with no differences found by other patient clinical or demographic characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients who received positive framing reported lower risk scores for cataract surgery than patients who received negative framing. Patient factors were not identified as significant determinants in patients' perceived risk. Larger longitudinal studies are warranted to further investigate.</p>","PeriodicalId":9286,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Ophthalmology","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11086490/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001613","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Risk communication is an integral aspect of shared decision-making and evidence-based patient choice. There is currently no recommended way of communicating risks and benefits of cataract surgery to patients. This study aims to investigate whether the way this information is presented influences patients' perception of how risky surgery will be.

Methods and analysis: Two-arm parallel randomised study and patients referred for cataract surgery were assigned to receive information framed either positively (99% chance of no adverse effects) or negatively (1% chance of adverse effects). Subsequently, patients rated their perceived risk of experiencing surgical side effects on a 1-6 scale.

Results: This study included 100 patients, 50 in each study group. Median (IQR) risk perception was 2 (1-2) in the positive framing group and 3 (1-3) in the negative framing group (p<0.0001). Risk framing was the only factor that was significant in risk perception, with no differences found by other patient clinical or demographic characteristics.

Conclusion: Patients who received positive framing reported lower risk scores for cataract surgery than patients who received negative framing. Patient factors were not identified as significant determinants in patients' perceived risk. Larger longitudinal studies are warranted to further investigate.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
白内障手术中的风险交流。
目的:风险交流是共同决策和患者循证选择的一个组成部分。目前尚无向患者传达白内障手术风险和益处的推荐方式。本研究旨在探讨这些信息的呈现方式是否会影响患者对手术风险的认知:双臂平行随机研究,转诊接受白内障手术的患者被分配接受正面(99%的几率无不良反应)或负面(1%的几率有不良反应)的信息。随后,患者按1-6分制对其认为的手术副作用风险进行评分:这项研究包括 100 名患者,每组 50 人。积极构思组的风险感知中位数(IQR)为 2(1-2),消极构思组为 3(1-3)(p 结论:接受积极构思的患者报告的手术副作用风险较低:与接受负面框架设计的患者相比,接受正面框架设计的患者报告的白内障手术风险评分较低。患者因素未被确定为患者感知风险的重要决定因素。有必要进行更大规模的纵向研究,以进一步了解情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Ophthalmology
BMJ Open Ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
104
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Systemic and local vascular features in branch retinal vein occlusion: analysis of the retinal age gap and crossing pattern. Tumour control, eye retention and visual acuity after radiotherapy for choroidal melanoma. Randomised, double-masked trial to compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of the biosimilar aflibercept FYB203 with reference aflibercept in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. In utero exposure to medications and congenital eye anomalies. Dual crisis: environmental and economic unsustainability in NHS dry eye prescribing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1