Understanding Risk Reductions in Healthcare
Author Information
Author(s): Lene Sorensen, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Ivar S. Kristiansen, Jørgen Nexøe, Jesper B. Nielsen
Primary Institution: Amgros I/S, Copenhagen, Denmark
Hypothesis
Are lay people able to differentiate between preventive interventions based on relative risk reduction?
Conclusion
Lay people's decisions about therapy are only slightly influenced by the magnitude of the effect when presented in terms of relative risk reduction.
Supporting Evidence
- 58% of respondents accepted the hypothetical treatment.
- Acceptance rates increased with higher relative risk reductions.
- No significant difference in acceptance based on baseline risk presentation.
Takeaway
This study found that people don't really understand how effective a treatment is when it's shown as a percentage, and they often can't tell the difference between small and big benefits.
Methodology
A randomised cross-sectional interview survey of a representative sample of lay people in Denmark.
Potential Biases
Potential misunderstanding of relative risk reduction percentages.
Limitations
The study's hypothetical scenarios may not accurately reflect real-life decision-making.
Participant Demographics
Mean age 59 years, 53.9% women, varied income and education levels.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.02
Confidence Interval
0.39–1.44
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website