Making sense of harms and benefits: Assessing the numeric presentation of risk information in ACOG obstetrical clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To assess the presentation of risk information in American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) obstetrical Practice Bulletins.

METHODS

We reviewed B- and C-graded recommendations in Practice Bulletins published from January 2017 to March 2020. We calculated the proportion of recommendations and outcomes that were presented numerically and, of these, the proportion that were presented in accordance with best practices of risk communication - in absolute formats, or as absolute changes in risk from baseline risks. We categorized outcomes as harms or benefits to compare their risk presentation.

RESULTS

In 21 obstetrical Practice Bulletins, there were 125 recommendations, with 46 (37%) describing risks numerically. Sixteen of these 46 recommendations (35%) presented an absolute change in risk from a baseline risk. For harms, 65% were presented as absolute risks and 25% as relative risks. For benefits, this was 55% and 48% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Most recommendations do not present numeric risk information. Of those that do, most do not use absolute risk measures.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Obstetrical practice guidelines should present numerical risk information wherever possible to support recommendations, increasing the use of absolute risk formats and absolute changes from baseline risks to increase risk comprehension.

Which risk understandings can be derived from the current disharmonized regulation of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe?

BACKGROUND

Many European citizens are seeking complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). These treatments are regulated very differently in the EU/EFTA countries. This may demonstrate differences in how risk associated with the use of CAM is perceived. Since most CAM treatments are practiced fairly similarly across Europe, differing risk understandings may influence patient safety for European CAM users. The overall aim of this article is thus to contribute to an overview and awareness of possible differing risk understandings in the field of CAM at a policymaking/structural level in Europe.

METHODS

The study is a re-analysis of data collected in the CAMbrella EU FP7 document and interview study on the regulation of CAM in 39 European countries. The 12 CAM modalities included in the CAMbrella study were ranked with regard to assumed risk potential depending on the number of countries limiting its practice to regulated professions. The 39 countries were ranked according to how many of the included CAM modalities they limit to be practiced by regulated professions.

RESULTS

Twelve of 39 countries generally understand the included CAM treatments to represent "high risk", 20 countries "low risk", while the remaining 7 countries understand CAM treatments as carrying "very little or no risk". The CAM modalities seen as carrying a risk high enough to warrant professional regulation in the highest number of countries are chiropractic, acupuncture, massage, homeopathy and osteopathy. The countries understanding most of the CAM modalities in the study as potentially high-risk treatments are with two exceptions (Portugal and Belgium) all concentrated in the southeastern region of Europe.

CONCLUSION

The variation in regulation of CAM may represent a substantial lack of common risk understandings between health policymakers in Europe. We think the discrepancies in regulation are to a considerable degree also based on factors unrelated to patient risk. We argue that it is important for patient safety that policy makers across Europe address this confusing situation. This could be done by applying the WHO patient safety definitions and EU's policy to facilitate access to "safe and high-quality healthcare", and regulate CAM accordingly.