@article{10.22454/FamMed.2019.400835,
author = {Mostofsky, Elizabeth and Dunn, Jillian A. and Hernández-Díaz, Sonia and Mittleman, Murray A.},
title = {Patient and Physician Preferences for Reporting Research Findings },
journal = {Family Medicine},
volume = {51},
number = {6},
year = {2019},
month = {6},
pages = {502-508},
doi = {10.22454/FamMed.2019.400835},
abstract = {Background and Objectives: Although absolute risks provide useful information on the number of excess cases attributable to a harmful exposure or the number of fewer cases attributable to an effective treatment, most research findings are reported in terms of multiplicative effects of exposure on the outcome. We aimed to examine patient and physician preferences for communicating research findings in terms of additive and multiplicative measures of effect and measures of heterogeneity of treatment effects.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 76 patients and 26 physicians at an academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. Trained study staff conducted interviews about interpretations of study findings.
Results: Physicians were equally likely to prefer the number needed to harm or the risk ratio as the most useful measure for making informed health decisions, and patients strongly preferred risk ratios. Participants perceived changes in risk as larger when they were presented using multiplicative measures such as risk ratios than when presented as additive measures such as the risk differences or number needed to treat or harm.
Conclusions: Despite the importance of considering absolute risks and benefits of treatment options, patients and physicians who rely on study findings for making informed decisions often prefer relative measures.},
URL = {https://journals.stfm.org//familymedicine/2019/june/mostofsky-2018-0384/},
eprint = {https://journals.stfm.org//media/2376/mostofsky-2018-0384.pdf},
}