Risk communication methods in hip fracture prevention: a randomised trial in primary care

Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review

Background. The format in which probabilities are presented influences comprehension and interpretation. Purpose. To develop comprehensive evidence-based guidance about how to communicate probabilities in health and to identify strengths and weaknesses in the literature. This article presents methods for the review of probability communication and is accompanied by several results articles. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. Study Selection. Two reviewers conducted screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or lay audiences. Data Extraction. In our conceptual framework, people make sense of a stimulus (data in a data presentation format) by performing cognitive tasks, resulting in perceptual, affective, cognitive, or behavioral responses measured as 1 of 14 distinct outcomes. The study team developed custom instruments to extract concepts, conduct risk-of-bias evaluation, and evaluate individual findings for credibility. Data Synthesis. Findings were grouped into tables by task and outcome for evidence synthesis. Limitations. Reviewer error could have led to missing relevant studies despite having 2 independent reviewers screening each article. The granular data extraction and syntheses slowed the work and may have made it less replicable. Credibility was evaluated by only 2 experts. Conclusions. After reviewing 26,793 titles and abstracts, we identified 316 articles about probability communication. Data extraction produced 1,119 individual findings, which were grouped into 37 evidence tables, each containing evidence on up to 10 data presentation format comparisons. The Making Numbers Meaningful project required novel methods for classifying and synthesizing research, which reveal patterns of strength and weakness in the probability communication literature.

Highlights

The Making Numbers Meaningful project conducted a comprehensive systematic review of experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or other lay audiences. The current article focuses on probability information.Based on a conceptual taxonomy, we reviewed studies based on the cognitive tasks required of participants, assessing 14 distinct possible outcomes.Our review identified 316 articles involving probability communications that generated 1,119 distinct research findings, each of which was reviewed by multiple experts for credibility.The overall pattern of findings highlights which probability communication questions have been well researched and which have not. For example, there has been far more research on communicating single probabilities than on communicating more complex information such as trends over time, and there has been a large amount of research on the effect of communication approaches on behavioral intentions but relatively little on behaviors.

How Synthesis Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review

Background. To develop guidance on the effect of data presentation format on communication of health probabilities, the Making Numbers Meaningful project undertook a systematic review. Purpose. This article, one in a series, covers evidence about a "synthesis task," in which readers examine stimuli to synthesize information about multiple features of health options, such as chances of both harm and benefit for a treatment. This article presents evidence of the effect of format on perceptual, cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. Finding Selection. Manual pairwise screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research comparing 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to lay audiences. This article reports on 91 findings derived from 45 unique studies reported in 42 articles. Data Extraction. Pairwise extraction of information on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), cognitive task, and perceptual, affective, cognitive, or behavioral outcomes. Data Synthesis. Evidence was found about 6 outcomes: identification/recall, contrast, effectiveness perceptions/feelings, behavioral intentions/behavior, trust, and preference. No strong evidence was found. Moderate evidence suggests that for synthesis tasks, behavioral intention is not affected by whether the risk and benefit probabilities are in text or in tables, that people prefer tables to text for presenting this information, and that effectiveness feelings are not affected by whether or not numbers are supplemented by narratives. Limitations. Granular data extraction and evidence syntheses lead to narrow evidence statements. Conclusions. Current evidence on synthesis tasks is moderate strength at best. Future studies should enrich the evidence on how to present information needed to synthesize multiple features of health options, given the importance of this task.

Highlights

This study found a moderate number of studies assessing strategies for evaluating sets of probabilities conveying information such as risks and benefits.Evidence is moderate that although presenting sets of probabilities in table versus sentences may not affect behavioral intentions, people may prefer tables.Contrary to previous studies about probability feelings, moderate evidence suggested that narratives may not affect effectiveness feelings.Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions regarding contrast, identification, and trust outcomes, and no studies assessed recall, categorization, computation, or discrimination outcomes.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I2 = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I2 = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I2 = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I2 = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Primary healthcare providers challenged during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Primary healthcare (PHC) providers are widely acknowledged for putting the most efficient and long-lasting efforts for addressing community health issues and promoting health equity. This study aimed to explore PHC providers' experiences with coronavirus pandemic preparedness and response in Armenia.

METHODS

We applied a qualitative study design using semi-structured in-depth interviews and structured observation checklists. Study participants were recruited using theoretical and convenience sampling techniques throughout Armenia. Inductive conventional content analysis was utilized to analyze the in-depth interviews. Nineteen in-depth interviews were conducted with 21 participants. Observations took place in 35 PHC facilities. The data collected during the observations was analyzed using the "SPSS22.0.0.0" software.

RESULTS

Five main themes of primary healthcare providers' experiences were drawn out based on the study findings: 1) the gap in providers' risk communication skills; 2) uneven supply distributions; 3) difficulties in specimen collection and testing processes; 4) providers challenged by home visits; 5) poor patient-provider relationships. The results revealed that primary care providers were affected by uneven supply distribution throughout the country. The lack of proper laboratory settings and issues with specimen collection were challenges shaping the providers' experiences during the pandemic. The study highlighted the health systems' unpreparedness to engage providers in home visits for COVID-19 patients. The findings suggested that it was more challenging for healthcare providers to gain the trust of their patients during the pandemic. The study results also underlined the need for trainings to help primary care providers enhance their risk communication expertise or assign other responsible bodies to carry out risk communication on PHC providers' behalf.

CONCLUSION

The study discovered that PHC providers have a very important role in healthcare system's preparedness and response to handle public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the findings the study team recommends prioritizing rural PHC development, ensuring appropriate supply distributions, developing comprehensive protocols on safe home visits and specimen collection and testing processes, and trainings PHC providers on risk communication, patient-centeredness, as well as proper use of personal protective equipment.

Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review

Two scoping reviews were conducted to review recommendations and guidelines for communication regarding general health risk, and to investigate communication strategies regarding risk of fracture. Healthcare professionals are invited to apply these recommendations to optimize a patient-centered approach to reducing risk of fracture.

INTRODUCTION

To conduct a scoping review of the medical literature regarding recommendations and tools for effective communication between healthcare professionals and patients regarding general health risk and risk of fracture.

METHODS

The scoping review was divided into two parts to search for (1) studies presenting recommendations and guidelines for communication regarding general health risk; (2) studies investigating communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk for fractures. Medline was searched in April 2020 to identify relevant studies.

RESULTS

The scoping review included 43 studies on communication with regard to general health risk and 25 studies about communication regarding risk of fracture. Recommendations for effective communication with regard to risk are presented. Communication of numeric data on risk should be adapted to the literacy and numeracy levels of the individual patient. Patient understanding of numerical data can be enhanced with appropriate use of visual aids (e.g., pie charts, icon arrays, bar charts, pictograms). The FRAX® tool is the most recommended and most used tool for assessing risk of fracture. Communication sent as individualized letters to patients following DXA scans has been studied, although patient understanding of their risk of fracture is often reported as low using this technique. Use of visual aids may improve patient understanding.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals are encouraged to apply recommendations presented in this scoping review in their clinical practice. Patient understanding of risk of fracture should be confirmed by making sure that patients feel free to ask questions and express their concerns. This will contribute to an optimal patient-centered approach. Developing online tools to convert the probability of fracture into patient-friendly visual presentations could facilitate communication between healthcare professionals and patients about risk of fracture.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS/AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS-2020 UPDATE

Objective: The development of these guidelines is sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols. Results: The Executive Summary of this 2020 updated guideline contains 52 recommendations: 21 Grade A (40%), 24 Grade B (46%), 7 Grade C (14%), and no Grade D (0%). These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world care of patients. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for the Executive Summary recommendations. This update contains 368 citations: 123 (33.5%) evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 132 (36%) EL 2 (intermediate), 20 (5.5%) EL 3 (weak), and 93 (25%) EL 4 (lowest). New or updated topics in this CPG include: clarification of the diagnosis of osteoporosis, stratification of the patient according to high-risk and very-high-risk features, a new dual-action therapy option, and transitions from therapeutic options. Conclusion: This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis. Abbreviations: 25(OH)D = 25-hydroxyvitamin D; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ACE = American College of Endocrinology; AFF = atypical femoral fracture; ASBMR = American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; BEL = best evidence level; BMD = bone mineral density; BTM = bone turnover marker; CI = confidence interval; CPG = clinical practice guideline; CTX = C-terminal telopeptide type-I collagen; DXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; EL = evidence level; FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration; FRAX® = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool; GI = gastrointestinal; HORIZON = Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic acid ONce yearly Pivotal Fracture Trial (zoledronic acid and zoledronate are equivalent terms); ISCD = International Society for Clinical Densitometry; IU = international units; IV = intravenous; LSC = least significant change; NOF = National Osteoporosis Foundation; ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw; PINP = serum amino-terminal propeptide of type-I collagen; PTH = parathyroid hormone; R = recommendation; ROI = region of interest; RR = relative risk; SD = standard deviation; TBS = trabecular bone score; VFA = vertebral fracture assessment; WHO = World Health Organization.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS - 2016

ABBREVIATIONS

AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AFF = atypical femur fracture ASBMR = American Society for Bone and Mineral Research BEL = best evidence level BMD = bone mineral density BTM = bone turnover marker CBC = complete blood count CI = confidence interval DXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry EL = evidence level FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration FLEX = Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) Long-term Extension FRAX_® = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool GFR = glomerular filtration rate GI = gastrointestinal HORIZON = Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly IOF = International Osteoporosis Foundation ISCD = International Society for Clinical Densitometry IU = international units IV = intravenous LSC = least significant change NBHA = National Bone Health Alliance NOF = National Osteoporosis Foundation 25(OH)D = 25-hydroxy vitamin D ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw PINP = serum carboxy-terminal propeptide of type I collagen PTH = parathyroid hormone R = recommendation RANK = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B RANKL = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand RCT = randomized controlled trial RR = relative risk S-CTX = serum C-terminal telopeptide SQ = subcutaneous VFA = vertebral fracture assessment WHO = World Health Organization.

Cost-Effectiveness of Osteoporosis Screening Strategies for Men

Osteoporosis affects many men, with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the best osteoporosis screening strategies for men are unknown. We developed an individual-level state-transition cost-effectiveness model with a lifetime time horizon to identify the cost-effectiveness of different osteoporosis screening strategies for US men involving various screening tests (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA]; the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool [OST]; or a fracture risk assessment strategy using age, femoral neck bone mineral density [BMD], and Vertebral Fracture Assessment [VFA]); screening initiation ages (50, 60, 70, or 80 years); and repeat screening intervals (5 years or 10 years). In base-case analysis, no screening was a less effective option than all other strategies evaluated; furthermore, no screening was more expensive than all strategies that involved screening with DXA or the OST risk assessment instrument, and thus no screening was "dominated" by screening with DXA or OST at all evaluated screening initiation ages and repeat screening intervals. Screening strategies that most frequently appeared as most cost-effective in base-case analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses when assuming willingness-to-pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $100,000/QALY included screening initiation at age 50 years with the fracture risk assessment strategy and repeat screening every 10 years; screening initiation at age 50 years with fracture risk assessment and repeat screening every 5 years; and screening initiation at age 50 years with DXA and repeat screening every 5 years. In conclusion, expansion of osteoporosis screening for US men to initiate routine screening at age 50 or 60 years would be expected to be effective and of good value for improving health outcomes. A fracture risk assessment strategy using variables of age, femoral neck BMD, and VFA is likely to be the most effective of the evaluated strategies within accepted cost-effectiveness parameters. DXA and OST are also reasonable screening options, albeit likely slightly less effective than the evaluated fracture risk assessment strategy. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy

BACKGROUND

The role of cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making is of growing interest. The purpose of this study was to determine whether studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on actual or hypothetical decisions and are conducted with populations that are representative of those who typically make the medical decision; to categorize the types of cognitive biases and heuristics found and whether they are found in patients or in medical personnel; and to critically review the studies based on standard methodological quality criteria.

METHOD

Data sources were original, peer-reviewed, empirical studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making found in Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, and the CINAHL databases published in 1980-2013. Predefined exclusion criteria were used to identify 213 studies. During data extraction, information was collected on type of bias or heuristic studied, respondent population, decision type, study type (actual or hypothetical), study method, and study conclusion.

RESULTS

Of the 213 studies analyzed, 164 (77%) were based on hypothetical vignettes, and 175 (82%) were conducted with representative populations. Nineteen types of cognitive biases and heuristics were found. Only 34% of studies (n = 73) investigated medical personnel, and 68% (n = 145) confirmed the presence of a bias or heuristic. Each methodological quality criterion was satisfied by more than 50% of the studies, except for sample size and validated instruments/questions. Limitations are that existing terms were used to inform search terms, and study inclusion criteria focused strictly on decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the studies on biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on hypothetical vignettes, raising concerns about applicability of these findings to actual decision making. Biases and heuristics have been underinvestigated in medical personnel compared with patients.

Patients' expectations of screening and preventive treatments

PURPOSE

An informed decision to accept a health care intervention requires an understanding of its likely benefit. This study assessed participants' estimates of the benefit, as well as minimum acceptable benefit, of screening for breast and bowel cancer and medication to prevent hip fracture and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

Three general practitioners sent questionnaires to all registered patients aged 50 to 70 years. Patients agreeing to participate in the study were asked to estimate the number of events (fractures or deaths) prevented in a group of 5,000 patients undergoing each intervention over a period of 10 years, and to indicate the minimum number of events avoided by the intervention that they considered justified its use. The proportions of participants that overestimated each intervention's benefit were calculated, and univariate and multivariable analyses of predictors of response were performed.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 36%: 977 patients were invited to participate in the study, and 354 returned a completed questionnaire. Participants overestimated the degree of benefit conferred by all interventions: 90% of participants overestimated the effect of breast cancer screening, 94% overestimated the effect of bowel cancer screening, 82% overestimated the effect of hip fracture preventive medication, and 69% overestimated the effect of preventive medication for cardiovascular disease. Estimates of minimum acceptable benefit were more conservative, but other than for cardiovascular disease mortality prevention, most respondents indicated a minimum benefit greater than these interventions achieve. A lower level of education was associated with higher estimates of minimum acceptable benefit for all interventions.

CONCLUSION

Patients overestimated the risk reduction achieved with 4 examples of screening and preventive medications. A lower level of education was associated with higher minimum benefit to justify intervention use. This tendency to overestimate benefits may affect patients' decisions to use such interventions, and practitioners should be aware of this tendency when discussing these interventions with patients.