The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial.
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.
Carling
Cheryl L L
CL
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. cheryl.carling@kunnskapssenteret.no
Kristoffersen
Doris Tove
DT
Montori
Victor M
VM
Herrin
Jeph
J
Schünemann
Holger J
HJ
Treweek
Shaun
S
Akl
Elie A
EA
Oxman
Andrew D
AD
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
D019161:Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
J Health Commun. 2001 Jan-Mar;6(1):61-82
11317424
J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Nov;18(11):948-59
14687282
Circulation. 1991 Jan;83(1):356-62
1984895
J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Oct;14(10):633-42
10571710
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Dec 1;127(11):966-72
9412301
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Nov;63(3):336-49
16860964
PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3693
19030110
Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):638-54
17873250
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31
17835457
Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 Suppl 1:i14-8
11533432
BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):741-4
14512488
Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Jul;50(3):285-90
12900101
Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):696-713
17873259
J Lab Clin Med. 2005 Apr;145(4):171-80
15962835
BMJ. 1998 Jun 27;316(7149):1956-8
9641937
JAMA. 1999 Dec 22-29;282(24):2340-6
10612322
Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(19):i-iv, 1-91
10576067
Med Decis Making. 1996 Jul-Sep;16(3):273-80
8818126
BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):736-40
14512487
J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Feb;12(1):13-23
16422776
Acad Med. 1998 May;73(5):538-40
9609869