Verbal Descriptions Accompanying Numeric Information About the Risk: The Valence of Message and Linguistic Polarity

Olchowska-Kotala, Agnieszka

doi:10.1007/s10936-019-09666-7

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding was validated in one experimental study involving 375 Polish students who were verbally presented with vignettes describing conversations with patients about the risks of two medical procedures. The risks were presented with a positive (“risk is low” or “risk is not high”) or negative (“risk is high” or “risk is not low”) valence [ 49 ]. Participants receiving a verbal description with a positive valence were more positive about the patient’s decision, and evaluated more positively the doctor’s and patient’s mood than did participants receiving a description with a negative valence [ 49 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risks were presented with a positive (“risk is low” or “risk is not high”) or negative (“risk is high” or “risk is not low”) valence [ 49 ]. Participants receiving a verbal description with a positive valence were more positive about the patient’s decision, and evaluated more positively the doctor’s and patient’s mood than did participants receiving a description with a negative valence [ 49 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review

Beaudart

Hiligsmann

et al. 2021

Osteoporos Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two scoping reviews were conducted to review recommendations and guidelines for communication regarding general health risk, and to investigate communication strategies regarding risk of fracture. Healthcare professionals are invited to apply these recommendations to optimize a patient-centered approach to reducing risk of fracture. Introduction To conduct a scoping review of the medical literature regarding recommendations and tools for effective communication between healthcare professionals and patients regarding general health risk and risk of fracture. Methods The scoping review was divided into two parts to search for (1) studies presenting recommendations and guidelines for communication regarding general health risk; (2) studies investigating communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk for fractures. Medline was searched in April 2020 to identify relevant studies. Results The scoping review included 43 studies on communication with regard to general health risk and 25 studies about communication regarding risk of fracture. Recommendations for effective communication with regard to risk are presented. Communication of numeric data on risk should be adapted to the literacy and numeracy levels of the individual patient. Patient understanding of numerical data can be enhanced with appropriate use of visual aids (e.g., pie charts, icon arrays, bar charts, pictograms). The FRAX® tool is the most recommended and most used tool for assessing risk of fracture. Communication sent as individualized letters to patients following DXA scans has been studied, although patient understanding of their risk of fracture is often reported as low using this technique. Use of visual aids may improve patient understanding. Conclusion Healthcare professionals are encouraged to apply recommendations presented in this scoping review in their clinical practice. Patient understanding of risk of fracture should be confirmed by making sure that patients feel free to ask questions and express their concerns. This will contribute to an optimal patient-centered approach. Developing online tools to convert the probability of fracture into patient-friendly visual presentations could facilitate communication between healthcare professionals and patients about risk of fracture.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review

Beaudart

Hiligsmann

et al. 2021

Osteoporos Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dimensions of uncertainty communication: What is conveyed by verbal terms and numeric ranges

Teigen

2022

Curr Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper reviews two strands of research on communication of uncertainty that usually have been investigated separately: (1) Probabilities attached to specific outcomes, and (2) Range judgments. Probabilities are sometimes expressed by verbal phrases (“rain is likely”) and at other times in a numeric format (“70% chance of rain”), whereas range judgments describe the potential amounts expected (“1–4 mm of rain”). Examination of previous research shows that both descriptions convey, in addition to the strength of expectations, pragmatic information about the communicative situation. For instance, so-called verbal probability expressions (VPE), as likely, unlikely, a chance, or not certain give some, albeit vague, probabilistic information, but carry in addition an implicit message about the sources of uncertainty, the outcome’s valence and severity, along with information about the speakers’ attitudes and their communicative intentions. VPEs are directional by drawing attention either to an outcome’s occurrence (“it is possible”) or to its non-occurrence (“it is doubtful”). In this sense they may be more informative than numbers. Uncertainties about outcomes in a distribution (continuous quantities) are alternatively expressed as interval estimates. The width of such intervals can function as a cue to credibility and expertise. Incomplete, one-sided intervals, where only one boundary is stated, imply directionality. “More than 100 people” suggests a crowd, while “less than 200” implies a shortfall. As with VPEs, directionally positive intervals are more frequent, and perhaps more neutral than negative ones. To convey expectancies and uncertainty in a balanced way, communicators may have to alternate between complementary frames.

show abstract

Verbal descriptors of the frequency of side effects: implementation of EMA recommendations in patient information leaflets in Poland

Olchowska-Kotala

Uchmanowicz

Szczepanowski

2022

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommends a description of drug side effects based on the frequency format and the associated verbal description. Although the recommendations refer to English-speaking countries, in several non-English speaking states, official authorities have accepted the proposed recommendations on how the patient information leaflets should be designed for descriptions of side effect frequencies. The aim of the study was to examine how manufacturers of authorized medicines in Poland implement the EMA recommendations regarding the verbal descriptors of the frequency of side effects. Methods A qualitative study. As a first step, we identified which of the 150 pharmaceutical companies operating in Poland had the largest market share. Then, five manufacturers were selected at random from the list of the top fifteen drug manufacturers in Poland by market share of the pharmaceutical sector. Lists of medicinal products authorized for marketing in Poland were downloaded from manufacturers’ websites, and then five products from each manufacturer were selected based on random sampling. The study included only prescription medicines and excluded over-the-counter medicines and dietary supplements from the sample. Subsequently, for each of the 25 drugs relevant patient information leaflets were obtained from the manufacturers’ websites. We evaluated how information on the frequency of side effects was provided in each leaflet, including the use of EU-recommended terms (verbal descriptors such as "very common," "common," "uncommon," "rare," "very rare") and additional notes explaining their meanings. Results For all manufacturers, word labels of the frequencies of side effects selected for the study were the same but the additional notes explaining their meanings were different. There were various explanations of how to understand verbal descriptors of the frequency of side effects not only across different manufacturers but also across different medicines from one manufacturer. Conclusions There is no single standard in the Polish pharmaceutical industry for implementing the EMA recommendations into the written information about the frequency of side effects. The observed differences for an explanation of how to understand a given verbal term do not favor a uniform interpretation of the verbal frequency labels meaning by patients.

show abstract

Verbal Descriptions Accompanying Numeric Information About the Risk: The Valence of Message and Linguistic Polarity

Cited by 3 publications

References 36 publications

Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review

Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review

Dimensions of uncertainty communication: What is conveyed by verbal terms and numeric ranges

Verbal descriptors of the frequency of side effects: implementation of EMA recommendations in patient information leaflets in Poland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About