Understanding and preferences regarding risk communication during pregnancy: a survey to facilitate provider communication with patients

被引:1
|
作者
Ferguson, Margot [1 ]
Shapiro, Gabriel D. [2 ]
McDonald, Sarah D. [3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Fac Sci, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] McGill Univ, Dept Epidemiol Biostat & Occupat Hlth, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] McMaster Univ, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[4] McMaster Univ, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Dept Radiol, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[5] McMaster Univ, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
bar graphs; gist accuracy; health literacy; icon arrays; med-ical decision-making; medical risk communication; pie charts; risk presen-tation; verbatim accuracy; FUZZY-TRACE THEORY; HEALTH; LITERACY; COMPREHENSION; FORMATS; LABELS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100929
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Clear communication of medical risk helps to ensure proper patient understanding of healthcare options and supports informed decision-making. Communication involving visual and written risk typically conveys risk more effectively than conversations alone between a patient and a clinician. However, perception of risk is context-dependent, and the efficacy of and preferences for commonly-used risk communication for-mats are not well-understood during pregnancy, which is a time of com-plex decision-making. We sought to address this knowledge gap. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess pregnant and recently preg-nant people's understanding and preferences for different risk communi-cation formats. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an open online REDCap survey of pregnant and recently pregnant people over a 1-month period in 2022. Study participants were aged 16 to 49 years, pregnant or recently pregnant, and able to provide informed consent in English. Data collected included demographics, measurements of accuracy of understanding including both gist accuracy (general understanding) and verbatim accuracy (numeric quan-tification), and preferences for risk communication formats including icon arrays, pie charts, bar graphs, and text. Descriptive analyses of the propor-tion of correctly answered questions were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 247 participants completed >= 1 item on accuracy and risk communication preferences, and 230 provided complete responses. Gist (general) understanding was accurate between 74% and 89% of the time for most graphical formats. Verbatim understanding (exact numeric quantification) was approximately 90% accurate for most formats. Respondents preferred that figures be used over circles to display risk in icon arrays, both for themselves and for infants, although figures generated more worry. However, participants substantially preferred pie charts over bar graphs (59%-70% vs 19%-25%). Respondents pre-ferred risk to be expressed with a lower denominator of 200 rather than a higher denominator of 1000 (79% vs 13%, although the lower denomina-tor generated more worry), and in terms of chance of survival rather than chance of death (50% vs 33%). CONCLUSION: In a survey of pregnant and recently pregnant people, most respondents preferred pie charts over other graph formats, and lower rather than higher denominators in text. Presentations of survival rather than death estimates were also preferred. Approximately 75% to 90% of respondents accurately understood risk presented with visual and written communication. For the remaining participants, for whom accurate understanding was challenging, new strategies need to be developed.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A survey of patients' preferences regarding anesthesia provider
    Tarazi, EM
    Vinta, M
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1999, 91 (3A) : U117 - U117
  • [2] Provider Communication and Patient Understanding of Life-Limiting Illness and Their Relationship to Patient Communication of Treatment Preferences
    Wagner, Glenn J.
    Riopelle, Deborah
    Steckart, Jillisa
    Lorenz, Karl A.
    Rosenfeld, Kenneth E.
    JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2010, 39 (03) : 527 - 534
  • [3] Communication preferences of patients with prostate cancer. Preferences regarding the communication of bad news of patients with prostate cancer in Germany-results of an anonymous patient survey
    Merseburger, A. S.
    Kramer, M. W.
    Scheithe, K.
    Colling, C.
    UROLOGE, 2016, 55 (10): : 1339 - 1345
  • [4] Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study
    Beaudart, Charlotte
    Sharma, Mitali
    Clark, Patricia
    Fujiwara, Saeko
    Adachi, Jonathan D.
    Messina, Osvaldo D.
    Morin, Suzanne N.
    Kohlmeier, Lynn A.
    Sangan, Caroline B.
    Nogues, Xavier
    Cruz-Priego, Griselda Adriana
    Cavallo, Andrea
    Cooper, Fiona
    Grier, Jamie
    Leckie, Carolyn
    Montiel-Ojeda, Diana
    Papaioannou, Alexandra
    Raskin, Nele
    Yurquina, Leonardo
    Wall, Michelle
    Bruyere, Olivier
    Boonen, Annelies
    Dennison, Elaine
    Harvey, Nicholas C.
    Kanis, John A.
    Kaux, Jean-Francois
    Lewiecki, E. Michael
    Lopez-Borbon, Oscar
    Paskins, Zoe
    Reginster, Jean-Yves
    Silverman, Stuart
    Hiligsmann, Mickael
    OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2024, 35 (03) : 451 - 468
  • [5] Patients’ preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study
    Charlotte Beaudart
    Mitali Sharma
    Patricia Clark
    Saeko Fujiwara
    Jonathan D. Adachi
    Osvaldo D. Messina
    Suzanne N. Morin
    Lynn A. Kohlmeier
    Caroline B. Sangan
    Xavier Nogues
    Griselda Adriana Cruz-Priego
    Andrea Cavallo
    Fiona Cooper
    Jamie Grier
    Carolyn Leckie
    Diana Montiel-Ojeda
    Alexandra Papaioannou
    Nele Raskin
    Leonardo Yurquina
    Michelle Wall
    Olivier Bruyère
    Annelies Boonen
    Elaine Dennison
    Nicholas C. Harvey
    John A. Kanis
    Jean-François Kaux
    E. Michael Lewiecki
    Oscar Lopez-Borbon
    Zoé Paskins
    Jean-Yves Reginster
    Stuart Silverman
    Mickaël Hiligsmann
    Osteoporosis International, 2024, 35 : 451 - 468
  • [6] Survey of the publics' preferences for communication of medical radiation risk *
    Davies, Elizabeth
    Peet, Deborah
    Taylor, Michael J.
    Chung, Emma M. L.
    JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION, 2022, 42 (02)
  • [7] Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences
    Edwards, A
    Elwyn, G
    QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2001, 10 : I9 - I13
  • [8] Patients preferences for communication during video consultations
    Mazouri-Karker, Sanae
    Braillard, Olivia
    Luechinger, Robin
    Bajwa, Nadia
    Achab, Sophia
    Hudelson, Patricia
    Dao, Melissa Dominic
    Junod-Perron, Noelle
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2023, 115
  • [9] Provider Communication in Split Treatment: A Survey
    Avena, Jolie Anne
    Kalman, Thomas P.
    PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, 2010, 61 (07) : 729 - 729
  • [10] Gynecologic cancer survivor preferences for provider communication regarding sexual health after treatment: a qualitative study
    Girard, A.
    Arenella, K.
    Rider, G. N.
    Teoh, D.
    Vogel, R. I.
    SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 2024, 32 (10)