You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Quality improvement
Systematic review
Transmitting risk effectively in studies is feasible, but insufficient for shared decision-making
  1. Claudia Zeballos-Palacios,
  2. Ian Hargraves,
  3. Victor M Montori
  1. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to : Dr Victor M Montori, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; Montori.Victor{at}mayo.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2014-110105

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary to: Zipkin DA, Umscheid CA, Keating NL, et al. Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2014;161:270–80.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Context

    Shared decision-making is a collaboration between patients and clinical health professionals. It is a conversation about their unique health situation in which they form preferences and make informed healthcare decisions. To improve this decision-making process, the Institute of Medicine recommended development and implementation of high-quality communication tools that match the mathematic abilities of patients and clinicians, which are often limited.1 The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of methods of communicating probabilistic risk information to patients.

    Methods

    The systematic review included cross-sectional and longitudinal studies published in English that recruited patients or healthy volunteers and compared any method of communicating probabilistic information with another method. No limits were placed on location, study size, duration or on the …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the same extent to the final manuscript, with CZ-P and IH developing the first draft. VMM provided critical revisions and supervised their work.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.