title: Presenting the improved possibility for staying well might be better than talking about change in risk: use of the non-occurrence probability increase (NOPI).
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Talking about risk with patients is problematic since the individual's risk is not addressed and is usually very low. This study aimed to see how fact presentation influenced the decision-making process for general practitioners concerning treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Rather than looking at the risk of becoming ill, often presented as high figures of relative risk reduction (RRR), it could be useful to present the probability of staying well, i.e. from the concept of non-occurrence probability (NOP) and non-occurrence probability increase (NOPI)--simply a single measure of change in NOP.
  
  
  METHODS
  General practitioners (GPs) had personal response keypads to answer two questions, presented differently, concerning whether they would allow themselves to be treated or not be treated for the risk of cardiovascular death.
  
  
  METHODS
  Five audiences consisting of general practitioners attending lectures.
  
  
  RESULTS
  When the question was presented as RRR, 68% and 86%, respectively, of the physicians responded that they would take the decision to treat. When presented as the concept of NOPI the figures were reduced to 18% and 16%, respectively (p < 10-6).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Developing tools to explain treatment effect is crucial to enhancing health care quality. Since NOPI is one potential way of presenting prevention of risk we encourage future research to evaluate the NOPI concept compared with RRR and absolute risk reduction (ARR).
authors.affiliation: Research and Development Unit, Primary Health Care and Dental Care, Southern Älvsborg County, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. bertil.hagstrom@telia.co
authors.forename: Bertil
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Hagström
authors.forename: Ronny K
authors.initials: RK
authors.lastname: Gunnarsson
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Rosenfeld
mesh_terms: D002318:Cardiovascular Diseases / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003657:Decision Making; D058006:General Practice; D058005:General Practitioners / Q000523:psychology*; D006801:Humans; D010349:Patient Compliance; D010353:Patient Education as Topic; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians'; D011336:Probability; D018570:Risk Assessment; D040242:Risk Reduction Behavior; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013548:Sweden / Q000453:epidemiology
references.citation: Lakartidningen. 2004 May 13;101(20):1798-801
references.pmid: 15198087
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16;(3):CD006776
references.pmid: 21412897
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):638-54
references.pmid: 17873250
references.citation: Ann Fam Med. 2008 May-Jun;6(3):213-7
references.pmid: 18474883
references.citation: Scand J Public Health. 2005;33(3):203-7
references.pmid: 16040461
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD001431
references.pmid: 19588325
references.citation: Scand J Prim Health Care. 2012 Jun;30(2):101-6
references.pmid: 22643155
references.citation: Scand J Prim Health Care. 1999 Mar;17(1):3-5
references.pmid: 10229984
references.citation: Scand J Prim Health Care. 2001 Jun;19(2):71-5
references.pmid: 11482417
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1):E1-10
references.pmid: 21173438
references.citation: Drugs. 2004;64 Suppl 2:43-60
references.pmid: 15765890
references.citation: Scand J Prim Health Care. 2003 Sep;21(3):162-6
references.pmid: 14531508
references.citation: Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8
references.pmid: 7455683