| To Register SMDM Homepage | |
|
|
|
||||
Objective:Previous research has shown that effect measures such as relative risk reduction or number-needed-to-treat may be misunderstood by lay people. We hypothesised that, for lay people, postponement of adverse events is a more understandable measure of treatment benefit
Methods: A random sample of non-institutionalised individuals aged 40 years and older (n=2,743) were asked to be interviewed in-person, and 1,367 (50%) accepted. The respondents were representative of the target population in terms of sex and age. The respondents were asked to imagine that they were at increased risk of heart attack, and were offered a hypothetical pharmaceutical drug that would reduce this risk. The respondents were informed that the drug would postpone the heart attack by, randomly, 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 4 years or 8 years. Information on baseline risk of heart attack was given to half of the respondents by random.
Results: In total, 58% of the respondents accepted the hypothetical therapy, 30% rejected it while 12% were uncertain. The proportions consenting were 39%, 52%, 56%, 64%, 67% and 73% with increasing postponement, and it was lower among those informed about baseline risk than the others (54% versus 62%). The information on health benefit was perceived as easy to understand by 81% of the respondents.
Conclusion: Postponement of adverse events seems to be understandable for lay people, and they are responsive to differences in delay. The results of the study indicate that postponement may be a better way than risk measures when explaining the benefits from interventions for chronic disease processes such as atherosclerosis or osteoporosis.
See more of Poster Session - Utility Theory; Health Economics; Patient & Physician Preferences; Simulation; Technology Assessment
See more of The 26th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making (October 17-20, 2004)