The @RISK Study: Risk communication for patients with type 2 diabetes: design of a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk to develop severe diabetes related complications, especially cardiovascular disease (CVD). The risk to develop CVD can be estimated by means of risk formulas. However, patients have difficulties to understand the outcomes of these formulas. As a result, they may not recognize the importance of changing lifestyle and taking medication in time. Therefore, it is important to develop risk communication methods, that will improve the patients' understanding of risks associated with having diabetes, which enables them to make informed choices about their diabetes care.</p> <p>The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of an intervention focussed on the communication of the absolute 10-year risk to develop CVD on risk perception, attitude and intention to change lifestyle behaviour in patients with T2DM. The conceptual framework of the intervention is based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Self-regulation Theory.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A randomised controlled trial will be performed in the Diabetes Care System West-Friesland (DCS), a managed care system. Newly referred T2DM patients of the DCS, younger than 75 years will be eligible for the study. The intervention group will be exposed to risk communication on CVD, on top of standard managed care of the DCS. This intervention consists of a simple explanation on the causes and consequences of CVD, and possibilities for prevention. The probabilities of CVD in 10 year will be explained in natural frequencies and visualised by a population diagram. The control group will receive standard managed care. The primary outcome is appropriateness of risk perception. Secondary outcomes are attitude and intention to change lifestyle behaviour and illness perception. Differences between baseline and follow-up (2 and 12 weeks) between groups will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The study was powered on 120 patients in each group.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This innovative risk communication method based on two behavioural theories might improve patient's appropriateness of risk perception and attitude concerning lifestyle change. With a better understanding of their CVD risk, patients will be able to make informed choices concerning diabetes care.</p> <p>Trail registration</p> <p>The trial is registered as NTR1556 in the Dutch Trial Register.</p

Structural mapping in statistical word problems: A relational reasoning approach to Bayesian inference

Presenting natural frequencies facilitates Bayesian inferences relative to using percentages. Nevertheless, many people, including highly educated and skilled reasoners, still fail to provide Bayesian responses to these computationally simple problems. We show that the complexity of relational reasoning (e.g., the structural mapping between the presented and requested relations) can help explain the remaining difficulties. With a non-Bayesian inference that required identical arithmetic but afforded a more direct structural mapping, performance was universally high. Furthermore, reducing the relational demands of the task through questions that directed reasoners to use the presented statistics, as compared with questions that prompted the representation of a second, similar sample, also significantly improved reasoning. Distinct error patterns were also observed between these presented- and similar-sample scenarios, which suggested differences in relational-reasoning strategies. On the other hand, while higher numeracy was associated with better Bayesian reasoning, higher-numerate reasoners were not immune to the relational complexity of the task. Together, these findings validate the relational-reasoning view of Bayesian problem solving and highlight the importance of considering not only the presented task structure, but also the complexity of the structural alignment between the presented and requested relations

Catastrophizing mediates the relationship between the personal belief in a just world and pain outcomes among chronic pain support group attendees

Health-related research suggests the belief in a just world can act as a personal resource that protects against the adverse effects of pain and illness. However, currently, little is known about how this belief, particularly in relation to one’s own life, might influence pain. Consistent with the suggestions of previous research, the present study undertook a secondary data analysis to investigate pain catastrophizing as a mediator of the relationship between the personal just world belief and chronic pain outcomes in a sample of chronic pain support group attendees. Partially supporting the hypotheses, catastrophizing was negatively correlated with the personal just world belief and mediated the relationship between this belief and pain and disability, but not distress. Suggestions for future research and intervention development are made

Oncologist use of the Adjuvant! model for risk communication: a pilot study examining patient knowledge of 10-year prognosis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Our purpose was to collect preliminary data on newly diagnosed breast cancer patient knowledge of prognosis before and after oncology visits. Many oncologists use a validated prognostic software model, Adjuvant!, to estimate 10-year recurrence and mortality outcomes for breast cancer local and adjuvant therapy. Some oncologists are printing Adjuvant! screens to use as visual aids during consultations. No study has reported how such use of Adjuvant! printouts affects patient knowledge of prognosis. We hypothesized that Adjuvant! printouts would be associated with significant changes in the proportion of patients with accurate understanding of local therapy prognosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We recruited a convenience sample of 20 patients seen by 2 senior oncologists using Adjuvant! printouts of recurrence and mortality screens in our academic medical center. We asked patients for their estimates of local therapy recurrence and mortality risks and counted the number of patients whose estimates were within ± 5% of Adjuvant! before and after the oncology visit, testing whether pre/post changes were significant using McNemar's two-sided test at a significance level of 5%.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two patients (10%) accurately estimated local therapy recurrence and mortality risks before the oncology visit, while seven out of twenty (35%) were accurate afterwards (p = 0.125).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A majority of patients in our sample were inaccurate in estimating their local therapy recurrence and mortality risks, even after being shown printouts summarizing these risks during their oncology visits. Larger studies are needed to replicate or repudiate these preliminary findings, and test alternative methods of presenting risk estimates. Meanwhile, oncologists should be wary of relying exclusively on Adjuvant! printouts to communicate local therapy recurrence and mortality estimates to patients, as they may leave a majority of patients misinformed.</p

How do family physicians communicate about cardiovascular risk? Frequencies and determinants of different communication formats

Background: Patients understand information about risk better if it is communicated in numerical or visual formats (e.g. graphs) compared to verbal qualifiers only. How frequently different communication formats are used in clinical primary care settings is unknown. Methods: We collected socioeconomic and patient understanding data using questionnaires and audio-recorded consultations about cardiovascular disease risk. The frequencies of the communication formats were calculated and multivariate regression analysis of associations between communication formats, patient and general practitioner characteristics, and patient subjective understanding was performed. Results: In 73% of 70 consultations, verbal qualifiers were used exclusively to communicate cardiovascular risk, compared to numerical (11%) and visual (16%) formats. Female GPs and female patient's gender were significantly associated with a higher use of verbal formats compared to visual formats (p = 0.001 and p = 0.039, respectively). Patient subjective understanding was significantly higher in visual counseling compared to verbal counseling (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Verbal qualifiers are the most often used communication format, though recommendations favor numerical and visual formats, with visual formats resulting in better understanding than others. Also, gender is associated with the choice of communication format. Barriers against numerical and visual communication formats among GPs and patients should be studied, including gender aspects. Adequate risk communication should be integrated into physicians' education

Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach

We used a mathematical modeling approach, based on a sample of 2,019 participants, to better understand what the cognitive reflection test (CRT; Frederick In Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42, 2005) measures. This test, which is typically completed in less than 10 min, contains three problems and aims to measure the ability or disposition to resist reporting the response that first comes to mind. However, since the test contains three mathematically based problems, it is possible that the test only measures mathematical abilities, and not cognitive reflection. We found that the models that included an inhibition parameter (i.e., the probability of inhibiting an intuitive response), as well as a mathematical parameter (i.e., the probability of using an adequate mathematical procedure), fitted the data better than a model that only included a mathematical parameter. We also found that the inhibition parameter in males is best explained by both rational thinking ability and the disposition toward actively open-minded thinking, whereas in females this parameter was better explained by rational thinking only. With these findings, this study contributes to the understanding of the processes involved in solving the CRT, and will be particularly useful for researchers who are considering using this test in their research

Can Plan Recommendations Improve the Coverage Decisions of Vulnerable Populations in Health Insurance Marketplaces?

OBJECTIVE: The Affordable Care Act's marketplaces present an important opportunity for expanding coverage but consumers face enormous challenges in navigating through enrollment and re-enrollment. We tested the effectiveness of a behaviorally informed policy tool--plan recommendations--in improving marketplace decisions. STUDY SETTING: Data were gathered from a community sample of 656 lower-income, minority, rural residents of Virginia. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an incentive-compatible, computer-based experiment using a hypothetical marketplace like the one consumers face in the federally-facilitated marketplaces, and examined their decision quality. Participants were randomly assigned to a control condition or three types of plan recommendations: social normative, physician, and government. For participants randomized to a plan recommendation condition, the plan that maximized expected earnings, and minimized total expected annual health care costs, was recommended. DATA COLLECTION: Primary data were gathered using an online choice experiment and questionnaire. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Plan recommendations resulted in a 21 percentage point increase in the probability of choosing the earnings maximizing plan, after controlling for participant characteristics. Two conditions, government or providers recommending the lowest cost plan, resulted in plan choices that lowered annual costs compared to marketplaces where no recommendations were made. CONCLUSIONS: As millions of adults grapple with choosing plans in marketplaces and whether to switch plans during open enrollment, it is time to consider marketplace redesigns and leverage insights from the behavioral sciences to facilitate consumers' decisions

Gain and Loss Learning Differentially Contribute to Life Financial Outcomes

Emerging findings imply that distinct neurobehavioral systems process gains and losses. This study investigated whether individual differences in gain learning and loss learning might contribute to different life financial outcomes (i.e., assets versus debt). In a community sample of healthy adults (n = 75), rapid learners had smaller debt-to-asset ratios overall. More specific analyses, however, revealed that those who learned rapidly about gains had more assets, while those who learned rapidly about losses had less debt. These distinct associations remained strong even after controlling for potential cognitive (e.g., intelligence, memory, and risk preferences) and socioeconomic (e.g., age, sex, ethnicity, income, education) confounds. Self-reported measures of assets and debt were additionally validated with credit report data in a subset of subjects. These findings support the notion that different gain and loss learning systems may exert a cumulative influence on distinct life financial outcomes

Discussing life expectancy with surgical patients: Do patients want to know and how should this information be delivered?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Predicted patient life expectancy (LE) and survival probability (SP), based on a patient's medical history, are important components of surgical decision-making and informed consent. The objective of this study was to assess patients' interpretation of and desire to know information relating to LE, in addition to establishing the most effective format for discussion.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross sectional survey of 120 patients (mean age = 68.7 years, range 50–90 years), recruited from general urological and surgical outpatient clinics in one District General and one Teaching hospital in Southwest England (UK) was conducted. Patients were included irrespective of their current diagnosis or associated comorbidity. Hypothetical patient case scenarios were used to assess patients' desire to know LE and SP, in addition to their preferred presentation format.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>58% of patients expressed a desire to know their LE and SP, if it were possible to calculate, with 36% not wishing to know either. Patients preferred a combination of numerical and pictorial formats in discussing LE and SP, with numerical, verbal and pictorial formats alone least preferred. 71% patients ranked the survival curve as either their first or second most preferred graph, with 76% rating facial figures their least preferred. No statistically significant difference was noted between sexes or educational backgrounds.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A proportion of patients seem unwilling to discuss their LE and SP. This may relate to their current diagnosis, level of associated comorbidity or degree of understanding. However it is feasible that by providing this information in a range of presentation formats, greater engagement in the shared decision-making process can be encouraged.</p