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
  • [31] PATIENTS' PREFERENCES FOR COMMUNICATING FRACTURE RISK: THE RISK COMMUNICATION IN OSTEOPOROSIS (RICO) STUDY
    Beaudart, C.
    Sharma, M.
    Silverman, S.
    Hiligsmann, M.
    AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH, 2023, 35 : S88 - S88
  • [32] A Survey of Nephrologists Regarding Their Communication with Transplant Centers
    Bartolomeo, K.
    Lipinski, M.
    Romeu, J.
    Ghahramani, N.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION MEDICINE, 2020, 11 (03): : 95 - 100
  • [33] Parent-Provider Communication During Hospitalization
    Fisher, Mark J.
    Broome, Marion E.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC NURSING-NURSING CARE OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, 2011, 26 (01): : 58 - 69
  • [34] Understanding BRCA Mutation Carriers' Preferences for Communication of Genetic Modifiers of Breast Cancer Risk
    Hovick, Shelly R.
    Tan, Naomi
    Morr, Lindsey
    Senter, Leigha
    Kinnamon, Daniel D.
    Pyatt, Robert E.
    Toland, Amanda E.
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION, 2019, 24 (04) : 377 - 384
  • [35] Media Preferences That Facilitate Interpersonal Communication Regarding Sexual Health: Racial Differences Among College-Aged Females
    Chandler, Rasheeta
    Johnson-Mallard, Versie
    Kip, Kevin
    Evans, Mary
    SAGE OPEN, 2013, 3 (04):
  • [36] Understanding Communication Preferences in Collaborative Cybersecurity Incident Response
    Zhong, Chen
    Zaza, Sam
    Bartelt, Valerie
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2024 COMPUTERS AND PEOPLE RESEARCH CONFERENCE, SIGMIS-CPR 2024, 2024,
  • [37] Understanding Communication Preferences of College Students With Visual Disabilities
    Myers, Karen A.
    Bastian, Joni J.
    JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT, 2010, 51 (03) : 265 - 278
  • [38] Understanding transnational MBA students' instructional communication preferences
    Bambacas, Mary
    Sanderson, Gavin
    Feast, Vicki
    Yang, Song
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION IN BUSINESS, 2008, 1 (01) : 15 - 28
  • [39] "WHAT DID THEY WANT?" A SURVEY OF PROVIDER UNDERSTANDING OF PATIENT CARE PREFERENCES
    Bellinghausen, Amy
    Cederquist, Lynette
    Sell, Rebecca
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2021, 49 (01) : 256 - 256
  • [40] Provider Communication and Patient Understanding of Glycemic Control Require Improvement
    Barnes, Catherine S.
    Hoyer, Lauren L.
    Caudle, Jane M.
    Pall, Allsion E.
    Ziemer, David C.
    DIABETES, 2017, 66 : A607 - A607