BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024
Risk communication in cataract surgery.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Martinez Diana Lucia, Ahmed Iqbal Ike K, Schlenker Matthew B
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Risk communication is an integral aspect of shared decision-making and evidence-based patient choice. There is currently no recommended way of communicating risks and benefits of cataract surgery to patients. This study aims to investigate whether the way this information is presented influences patients' perception of how risky surgery will be.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two-arm parallel randomised study and patients referred for cataract surgery were assigned to receive information framed either positively (99% chance of no adverse effects) or negatively (1% chance of adverse effects). Subsequently, patients rated their perceived risk of experiencing surgical side effects on a 1-6 scale.
RESULTS: This study included 100 patients, 50 in each study group. Median (IQR) risk perception was 2 (1-2) in the positive framing group and 3 (1-3) in the negative framing group (p<0.0001). Risk framing was the only factor that was significant in risk perception, with no differences found by other patient clinical or demographic characteristics.
CONCLUSION: Patients who received positive framing reported lower risk scores for cataract surgery than patients who received negative framing. Patient factors were not identified as significant determinants in patients' perceived risk. Larger longitudinal studies are warranted to further investigate.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two-arm parallel randomised study and patients referred for cataract surgery were assigned to receive information framed either positively (99% chance of no adverse effects) or negatively (1% chance of adverse effects). Subsequently, patients rated their perceived risk of experiencing surgical side effects on a 1-6 scale.
RESULTS: This study included 100 patients, 50 in each study group. Median (IQR) risk perception was 2 (1-2) in the positive framing group and 3 (1-3) in the negative framing group (p<0.0001). Risk framing was the only factor that was significant in risk perception, with no differences found by other patient clinical or demographic characteristics.
CONCLUSION: Patients who received positive framing reported lower risk scores for cataract surgery than patients who received negative framing. Patient factors were not identified as significant determinants in patients' perceived risk. Larger longitudinal studies are warranted to further investigate.