比较信息在传达治疗结果的个性化风险时的影响:一项实验研究

IF 2.4 4区 管理学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Journal of Risk Research Pub Date : 2022-10-04 DOI:10.1080/13669877.2022.2128392
Ruben D. Vromans, S. Pauws, L. V. van de Poll-Franse, E. Krahmer
{"title":"比较信息在传达治疗结果的个性化风险时的影响:一项实验研究","authors":"Ruben D. Vromans, S. Pauws, L. V. van de Poll-Franse, E. Krahmer","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2128392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite great promise of using personalized risks of treatment outcomes during shared decision-making, patients often experience difficulty evaluating and using them. We examined the effects of providing comparative information of the average person’s risk when discussing personalized risks on people’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses. Participants (n = 1,807) from a representative sample of the Dutch population received personalized risks of treatment side-effects in three different health scenarios. Participants either received only their own personalized risk statistic, or with comparative data indicating that their risk was below or above average. Furthermore, we examined whether the effects would be influenced by message format (natural frequencies with or without icon arrays) and individual differences (subjective numeracy, health literacy, and graph literacy). Providing comparative information did not influence participants’ risk perceptions, affective evaluations, nor their treatment intention. However, participants who were told that their personalized risks were above average, estimated their own risk as lower than participants who received the same personalized risks that were below average or that were without any comparative data. Message format and individual differences did not influence people’s responses to comparative data. Healthcare professionals can consider providing comparative data for helping people make sense of their personalized risks.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"324 - 343"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of comparative information when communicating personalized risks of treatment outcomes: an experimental study\",\"authors\":\"Ruben D. Vromans, S. Pauws, L. V. van de Poll-Franse, E. Krahmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13669877.2022.2128392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Despite great promise of using personalized risks of treatment outcomes during shared decision-making, patients often experience difficulty evaluating and using them. We examined the effects of providing comparative information of the average person’s risk when discussing personalized risks on people’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses. Participants (n = 1,807) from a representative sample of the Dutch population received personalized risks of treatment side-effects in three different health scenarios. Participants either received only their own personalized risk statistic, or with comparative data indicating that their risk was below or above average. Furthermore, we examined whether the effects would be influenced by message format (natural frequencies with or without icon arrays) and individual differences (subjective numeracy, health literacy, and graph literacy). Providing comparative information did not influence participants’ risk perceptions, affective evaluations, nor their treatment intention. However, participants who were told that their personalized risks were above average, estimated their own risk as lower than participants who received the same personalized risks that were below average or that were without any comparative data. Message format and individual differences did not influence people’s responses to comparative data. Healthcare professionals can consider providing comparative data for helping people make sense of their personalized risks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Risk Research\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"324 - 343\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Risk Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2128392\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Risk Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2128392","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要尽管在共享决策过程中使用个性化的治疗结果风险有很大的前景,但患者在评估和使用这些风险时往往会遇到困难。在讨论个性化风险时,我们研究了提供普通人风险的比较信息对人们认知、情绪和行为反应的影响。参与者(n = 1807)在三种不同的健康情况下接受了治疗副作用的个性化风险。参与者要么只收到自己的个性化风险统计数据,要么有比较数据表明他们的风险低于或高于平均水平。此外,我们还研究了信息格式(有或没有图标阵列的自然频率)和个体差异(主观算术、健康素养和图形素养)是否会影响效果。提供比较信息不会影响参与者的风险认知、情感评估和治疗意图。然而,被告知他们的个性化风险高于平均水平的参与者,估计他们自己的风险低于接受低于平均水平或没有任何比较数据的相同个性化风险的参与者。信息格式和个体差异不会影响人们对比较数据的反应。医疗保健专业人员可以考虑提供比较数据,帮助人们了解他们的个性化风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Effects of comparative information when communicating personalized risks of treatment outcomes: an experimental study
Abstract Despite great promise of using personalized risks of treatment outcomes during shared decision-making, patients often experience difficulty evaluating and using them. We examined the effects of providing comparative information of the average person’s risk when discussing personalized risks on people’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses. Participants (n = 1,807) from a representative sample of the Dutch population received personalized risks of treatment side-effects in three different health scenarios. Participants either received only their own personalized risk statistic, or with comparative data indicating that their risk was below or above average. Furthermore, we examined whether the effects would be influenced by message format (natural frequencies with or without icon arrays) and individual differences (subjective numeracy, health literacy, and graph literacy). Providing comparative information did not influence participants’ risk perceptions, affective evaluations, nor their treatment intention. However, participants who were told that their personalized risks were above average, estimated their own risk as lower than participants who received the same personalized risks that were below average or that were without any comparative data. Message format and individual differences did not influence people’s responses to comparative data. Healthcare professionals can consider providing comparative data for helping people make sense of their personalized risks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Risk Research
Journal of Risk Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Risk Research is an international journal that publishes peer-reviewed theoretical and empirical research articles within the risk field from the areas of social, physical and health sciences and engineering, as well as articles related to decision making, regulation and policy issues in all disciplines. Articles will be published in English. The main aims of the Journal of Risk Research are to stimulate intellectual debate, to promote better risk management practices and to contribute to the development of risk management methodologies. Journal of Risk Research is the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan.
期刊最新文献
How is counterfactual thinking integrated in organizational risk and resilience practices? Growing utopia – undoing risk through self-sufficiency and urban gardening? Improving workplace safety through mindful organizing: participative safety self-efficacy as a mediational link between collective mindfulness and employees’ safety citizenship Community flood resilience assessment of Saadi neighborhood, Shiraz, Iran Risk communication and Covid-19 through the lens of anonymous sources
×
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:481959085
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