Abstract
Background
Interventions designed to help people deliberate and participate in their healthcare choices frequently describe uncertainty in potential benefits and harms. This uncertainty can be generalized to aleatory, or first-order uncertainty, represented by risk estimates, and epistemic, or second-order uncertainty, represented by imprecision in the risk estimates.
Objectives
The aim of this short communication was to review how patient decision support interventions (PDSIs) describe aleatory and epistemic uncertainty.
Research Design
We reviewed PDSIs available online in five repositories and extracted all the uncertainty statements.
Measures
A framework was developed and each statement was classified by presentation of uncertainty (aleatory and epistemic).
Results
Overall, we reviewed 460 PDSIs from eight main developers, which included 8956 uncertainty statements. When describing first-order, aleatory uncertainty, almost all PDSIs included at least one qualitative statement, such as ‘treatment may cause side effects’. Forty-four percent of PDSIs included at least one natural frequency, such as ‘2 in 100 people have side effects’. Second-order, epistemic uncertainty was also most often communicated qualitatively; notably, nearly half of all PDSIs did not communicate epistemic uncertainty at all. Few PDSIs communicated epistemic uncertainty in quantitative terms conveying imprecision, e.g. risk ranges.
Conclusions
We found considerable heterogeneity in both the extent and manner in which aleatory and epistemic uncertainties are communicated in PDSIs. This variation is predominately explained by a lack of evidence and consensus in risk communication, particularly for epistemic uncertainty. This study highlights the need for more empirical research to understand not only the outcomes of communicating uncertainty in PDSIs but also the reasons for this variation in uncertainty communication.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Elwyn G, Stiel M, Durand M-A, Boivin J. The design of patient decision support interventions: addressing the theory–practice gap. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):565–74.
Stacey D, Légaré F, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD001431.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
Briss P, Rimer B, Reilley B, Coates RC, Lee NC, Mullen P, et al. Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):67–80.
Han PK. Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):14S–36S.
Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Arora NK. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(6):828–38.
Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PK, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(2):1–15.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(19):1436–43.
Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.
Trevena LJ, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1):13–23.
Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(1):54–9.
Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Q J Econ. 1961;75(4):643–69.
Camerer C, Weber M. Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. J Risk Uncertain. 1992;5(4):325–70.
Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. Communication of ambiguous risk information. Theory Decis. 1991;31(2–3):159–73.
McCormack L, Sheridan S, Lewis M, Boudewyns V, Melvin CL, Kistler C, et al. Communication and dissemination strategies to facilitate the use of health-related evidence. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013. Report no. 13(14)-E003-EF.
Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman AN. The communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(2):354–66.
Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10(8):895–8.
Han PK, Klein WM, Lehman TC, Massett H, Lee SC, Freedman AN. Laypersons’ responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(3):391–403.
Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(6):459–67.
Politi MC, Lewis CL, Frosch DL. Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 Suppl):113S–28S.
Engelhardt EG, Pieterse AH, Han PK, van Duijn-Bakker N, Cluitmans F, Maartense E, et al. Disclosing the uncertainty associated with prognostic estimates in breast cancer current practices and patients’ perceptions of uncertainty. Med Decis Making. (Epub 28 Sep 2016).
Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;70(1):37.
Bansback N, Harrison M, Marra C. Does introducing imprecision around probabilities for benefit and harm influence the way people value treatments? Med Decis Making. 2016;36(4):490–502.
Howard RA. Uncertainty about probability: a decision analysis perspective. Risk Anal. 1988;8(1):91–8.
CCSP. Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating and incorporating scientific uncertainty in climate decision making. In: Granger Morgan M, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T, editors. A report by the climate change science program and the subcommittee on global change Research. Washington: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 2009.
Kattan MW. Doc, what are my chances? A conversation about prognostic uncertainty. Eur Urol. 2011;59(2):224.
Han PK, Klein WM, Killam B, Lehman T, Massett H, Freedman AN. Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):106–13.
Acknowledgements
Madelaine Bell and Alysa Pompeo were summer students funded by the Yee Bong Pang Endowment Fund (Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia).
Author contributions
Nick Bansback, Mark Harrison and Paul Han conceived the idea and designed the study. Madelaine Bell, Luke Spooner and Alysa Pompeo conducted the review, data extraction and analysis, with support from Nick Bansback, Mark Harrison and Paul Han. Nick Bansback wrote the first draft and all authors then participated in the writing and revision of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest related to this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bansback, N., Bell, M., Spooner, L. et al. Communicating Uncertainty in Benefits and Harms: A Review of Patient Decision Support Interventions. Patient 10, 311–319 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0210-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0210-z