title: The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  While different ways of presenting treatment effects can affect health care decisions, little is known about which presentations best help people make decisions consistent with their own values. We compared six summary statistics for communicating coronary heart disease (CHD) risk reduction with statins: relative risk reduction and five absolute summary measures-absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, event rates, tablets needed to take, and natural frequencies.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We conducted a randomized trial to determine which presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. We recruited adult volunteers who participated through an interactive Web site. Participants rated the relative importance of outcomes using visual analogue scales (VAS). We then randomized participants to one of the six summary statistics and asked them to choose whether to take statins based on this information. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS scores for the downsides of taking statins from the VAS score for CHD. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 2,978 participants completed the study. Relative risk reduction resulted in a 21% higher probability of choosing to take statins over all values of RIS compared to the absolute summary statistics. This corresponds to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5; i.e., for every five participants shown the relative risk reduction one additional participant chose to take statins, compared to the other summary statistics. There were no significant differences among the absolute summary statistics in the association between RIS and participants' decisions whether to take statins. Natural frequencies were best understood (86% reported they understood them well or very well), and participants were most satisfied with this information.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Presenting the benefits of taking statins as a relative risk reduction increases the likelihood of people accepting treatment compared to presenting absolute summary statistics, independent of the relative importance they attach to the consequences. Natural frequencies may be the most suitable summary statistic for presenting treatment effects, based on self-reported preference, understanding of and satisfaction with the information, and confidence in the decision.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  ISRCTN85194921.
authors.affiliation: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. cheryl.carling@kunnskapssenteret.no
authors.forename: Cheryl L L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Carling
authors.forename: Doris Tove
authors.initials: DT
authors.lastname: Kristoffersen
authors.forename: Victor M
authors.initials: VM
authors.lastname: Montori
authors.forename: Jeph
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Herrin
authors.forename: Holger J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Schünemann
authors.forename: Shaun
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Treweek
authors.forename: Elie A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Akl
authors.forename: Andrew D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Oxman
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D003327:Coronary Disease / Q000188:drug therapy*; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D019161:Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010353:Patient Education as Topic / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010358:Patient Participation; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D019161:Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
references.citation: J Health Commun. 2001 Jan-Mar;6(1):61-82
references.pmid: 11317424
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Nov;18(11):948-59
references.pmid: 14687282
references.citation: Circulation. 1991 Jan;83(1):356-62
references.pmid: 1984895
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Oct;14(10):633-42
references.pmid: 10571710
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1997 Dec 1;127(11):966-72
references.pmid: 9412301
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Nov;63(3):336-49
references.pmid: 16860964
references.citation: PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3693
references.pmid: 19030110
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):638-54
references.pmid: 17873250
references.citation: Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31
references.pmid: 17835457
references.citation: Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 Suppl 1:i14-8
references.pmid: 11533432
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):741-4
references.pmid: 14512488
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Jul;50(3):285-90
references.pmid: 12900101
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):696-713
references.pmid: 17873259
references.citation: J Lab Clin Med. 2005 Apr;145(4):171-80
references.pmid: 15962835
references.citation: BMJ. 1998 Jun 27;316(7149):1956-8
references.pmid: 9641937
references.citation: JAMA. 1999 Dec 22-29;282(24):2340-6
references.pmid: 10612322
references.citation: Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(19):i-iv, 1-91
references.pmid: 10576067
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 1996 Jul-Sep;16(3):273-80
references.pmid: 8818126
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):736-40
references.pmid: 14512487
references.citation: J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Feb;12(1):13-23
references.pmid: 16422776
references.citation: Acad Med. 1998 May;73(5):538-40
references.pmid: 9609869