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
  • [41] PATIENT PREFERENCES REGARDING COMMUNICATION ABOUT COST OF CANCER CARE
    Taylor, Emily P.
    Conley, Claire C.
    Derry-Vick, Heather M.
    Khoudary, Amanda
    Sorgen, Lia
    Billini, Osairys M.
    Gunning, Thomas
    Luck, Conor
    Hurley, Vanessa
    Marshall, John L.
    Weinberg, Benjamin
    Tesfaye, Anteneh
    Ip, Andrew
    Potosky, Arnold
    Schwartz, Marc D.
    ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2024, 58 : S296 - S296
  • [42] WEIGHT STIGMA AND PROVIDER COMMUNICATION WITH PATIENTS WITH OBESITY
    Phelan, Sean M.
    Puhl, Rebecca
    Saha, Somnath
    Burgess, Diana J.
    van Ryn, Michelle
    ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2018, 52 : S318 - S318
  • [43] Patient-Provider Communication Regarding Referral to Cardiac Rehabilitation Commentary
    Gies, Cheryl E.
    REHABILITATION NURSING, 2020, 45 (05) : 252 - 253
  • [44] Professionals' Understanding of Accessibility Regarding Business Communication Materials
    Drye, Sherrie L.
    Kelly, Stephanie
    Woodard, Thelma
    BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY, 2023, 86 (03) : 235 - 256
  • [45] Use of a risk communication survey to prioritize family-valued outcomes and communication preferences for children undergoing outpatient surgical procedures
    Arulanandam, Brandon
    Selvarajan, Arthega
    Piche, Nelson
    Sheldon, Signy
    Bloom, Robert
    Emil, Sherif
    Li, Patricia
    Janvier, Annie
    Baird, Robert
    Sampalis, John Sotirios
    Haggerty, Jeannie
    Guadagno, Elena
    Daniel, Sam J.
    Poenaru, Dan
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 2022, 57 (05) : 788 - 797
  • [46] Exploring public preferences for alcohol risk communication
    Bujalski, Michal
    DRUGS-EDUCATION PREVENTION AND POLICY, 2024,
  • [47] The Congruence of Patient Communication Preferences and Physician Communication Behavior in Cardiac Patients
    Farin, Erik
    Gramm, Lukas
    Schmidt, Erika
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOPULMONARY REHABILITATION AND PREVENTION, 2011, 31 (06) : 349 - 357
  • [48] PHYSICIAN COMMUNICATION TO PATIENTS REGARDING MEDICATIONS
    SCHERWITZ, L
    HENNRIKUS, D
    YUSIM, S
    LESTER, J
    VALLBONA, C
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 1985, 7 (02) : 121 - 136
  • [49] A communication aid to facilitate risk communication with women from high-risk breast cancer families
    Lobb, E
    Butow, P
    Tucker, K
    Barratt, A
    Kirk, J
    Dudding, T
    Gaff, C
    Butt, D
    Moore, A
    PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2003, 12 (04) : S258 - S258
  • [50] Risk communication: Problems of presentation and understanding
    Gordon-Lubitz, RJ
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2003, 289 (01): : 95 - 95