Heuristics and biases in cardiovascular disease prevention: How can we improve communication about risk, benefits and harms?

Carissa Bonner, Shannon McKinn, Annie Lau, Jesse Jansen, Jenny Doust, Lyndal Trevena, Kirsten McCaffery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)
86 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend medication based on the probability of a heart attack/stroke in the next 5-10 years. However, heuristics and biases make risk communication challenging for doctors. This study explored how patients interpret personalised CVD risk results presented in varying formats and timeframes. Methods: GPs recruited 25 patients with CVD risk factors and varying medication history. Participants were asked to 'think aloud' while using two CVD risk calculators that present probabilistic risk in different ways, within a semi-structured interview. Transcribed audio-recordings were coded using Framework Analysis. Results: Key themes were: 1) numbers lack meaning without a reference point; 2) risk results need to be both credible and novel; 3) selective attention to intervention effects. Risk categories (low/moderate/high) provided meaningful context, but short-term risk results were not credible if they didn't match expectations. Colour-coded icon arrays showing the effect of age and interventions were seen as novel and motivating. Those on medication focused on benefits, while others focused on harms. Conclusion: CVD risk formats need to be tailored to patient expectations and experiences in order to counteract heuristics and biases. Practice implications: Doctors need access to multiple CVD risk formats to communicate effectively about CVD prevention.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)843-853
Number of pages11
JournalPatient Education and Counseling
Volume101
Issue number5
Early online date11 Dec 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2018

Fingerprint

Cardiovascular Diseases
Communication
Heuristics
Color
Stroke
Myocardial Infarction
Guidelines
Interviews

Cite this

Bonner, Carissa ; McKinn, Shannon ; Lau, Annie ; Jansen, Jesse ; Doust, Jenny ; Trevena, Lyndal ; McCaffery, Kirsten. / Heuristics and biases in cardiovascular disease prevention : How can we improve communication about risk, benefits and harms?. In: Patient Education and Counseling. 2018 ; Vol. 101, No. 5. pp. 843-853.
@article{2517b473764942459f6c5c36ba8c8276,
title = "Heuristics and biases in cardiovascular disease prevention: How can we improve communication about risk, benefits and harms?",
abstract = "Objective: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend medication based on the probability of a heart attack/stroke in the next 5-10 years. However, heuristics and biases make risk communication challenging for doctors. This study explored how patients interpret personalised CVD risk results presented in varying formats and timeframes. Methods: GPs recruited 25 patients with CVD risk factors and varying medication history. Participants were asked to 'think aloud' while using two CVD risk calculators that present probabilistic risk in different ways, within a semi-structured interview. Transcribed audio-recordings were coded using Framework Analysis. Results: Key themes were: 1) numbers lack meaning without a reference point; 2) risk results need to be both credible and novel; 3) selective attention to intervention effects. Risk categories (low/moderate/high) provided meaningful context, but short-term risk results were not credible if they didn't match expectations. Colour-coded icon arrays showing the effect of age and interventions were seen as novel and motivating. Those on medication focused on benefits, while others focused on harms. Conclusion: CVD risk formats need to be tailored to patient expectations and experiences in order to counteract heuristics and biases. Practice implications: Doctors need access to multiple CVD risk formats to communicate effectively about CVD prevention.",
author = "Carissa Bonner and Shannon McKinn and Annie Lau and Jesse Jansen and Jenny Doust and Lyndal Trevena and Kirsten McCaffery",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.pec.2017.12.003",
language = "English",
volume = "101",
pages = "843--853",
journal = "Patient Education and Counseling",
issn = "0738-3991",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

Heuristics and biases in cardiovascular disease prevention : How can we improve communication about risk, benefits and harms? / Bonner, Carissa; McKinn, Shannon; Lau, Annie; Jansen, Jesse; Doust, Jenny; Trevena, Lyndal; McCaffery, Kirsten.

In: Patient Education and Counseling, Vol. 101, No. 5, 01.05.2018, p. 843-853.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Heuristics and biases in cardiovascular disease prevention

T2 - How can we improve communication about risk, benefits and harms?

AU - Bonner, Carissa

AU - McKinn, Shannon

AU - Lau, Annie

AU - Jansen, Jesse

AU - Doust, Jenny

AU - Trevena, Lyndal

AU - McCaffery, Kirsten

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Objective: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend medication based on the probability of a heart attack/stroke in the next 5-10 years. However, heuristics and biases make risk communication challenging for doctors. This study explored how patients interpret personalised CVD risk results presented in varying formats and timeframes. Methods: GPs recruited 25 patients with CVD risk factors and varying medication history. Participants were asked to 'think aloud' while using two CVD risk calculators that present probabilistic risk in different ways, within a semi-structured interview. Transcribed audio-recordings were coded using Framework Analysis. Results: Key themes were: 1) numbers lack meaning without a reference point; 2) risk results need to be both credible and novel; 3) selective attention to intervention effects. Risk categories (low/moderate/high) provided meaningful context, but short-term risk results were not credible if they didn't match expectations. Colour-coded icon arrays showing the effect of age and interventions were seen as novel and motivating. Those on medication focused on benefits, while others focused on harms. Conclusion: CVD risk formats need to be tailored to patient expectations and experiences in order to counteract heuristics and biases. Practice implications: Doctors need access to multiple CVD risk formats to communicate effectively about CVD prevention.

AB - Objective: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend medication based on the probability of a heart attack/stroke in the next 5-10 years. However, heuristics and biases make risk communication challenging for doctors. This study explored how patients interpret personalised CVD risk results presented in varying formats and timeframes. Methods: GPs recruited 25 patients with CVD risk factors and varying medication history. Participants were asked to 'think aloud' while using two CVD risk calculators that present probabilistic risk in different ways, within a semi-structured interview. Transcribed audio-recordings were coded using Framework Analysis. Results: Key themes were: 1) numbers lack meaning without a reference point; 2) risk results need to be both credible and novel; 3) selective attention to intervention effects. Risk categories (low/moderate/high) provided meaningful context, but short-term risk results were not credible if they didn't match expectations. Colour-coded icon arrays showing the effect of age and interventions were seen as novel and motivating. Those on medication focused on benefits, while others focused on harms. Conclusion: CVD risk formats need to be tailored to patient expectations and experiences in order to counteract heuristics and biases. Practice implications: Doctors need access to multiple CVD risk formats to communicate effectively about CVD prevention.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038359882&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2017.12.003

DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2017.12.003

M3 - Article

VL - 101

SP - 843

EP - 853

JO - Patient Education and Counseling

JF - Patient Education and Counseling

SN - 0738-3991

IS - 5

ER -