Imprecision and preferences in interpretation of verbal probabilities in health: A systematic review Review
| Authors: | Andreadis, K.; Chan, E.; Park, M.; Benda, N. C.; Sharma, M. M.; Demetres, M.; Delgado, D.; Sigworth, E.; Chen, Q.; Liu, A.; Liu, L. G.; Sharko, M.; Zikmund-Fisher, B. J.; Ancker, J. S. |
| Review Title: | Imprecision and preferences in interpretation of verbal probabilities in health: A systematic review |
| Abstract: | Introduction: Many health providers and communicators who are concerned that patients will not understand numbers instead use verbal probabilities (e.g., terms such as “rare” or “common”) to convey the gist of a health message. Objective: To assess patient interpretation of and preferences for verbal probability information in health contexts. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of literature published through September 2020. Original studies conducted in English with samples representative of lay populations were included if they assessed health-related information and elicited either (a) numerical estimates of verbal probability terms or (b) preferences for verbal vs. quantitative risk information. Results: We identified 33 original studies that referenced 145 verbal probability terms, 45 of which were included in at least two studies and 19 in three or more. Numerical interpretations of each verbal term were extremely variable. For example, average interpretations of the term “rare” ranged from 7 to 21%, and for “common,” the range was 34 to 71%. In a subset of 9 studies, lay estimates of verbal probability terms were far higher than the standard interpretations established by the European Commission for drug labels. In 10 of 12 samples where preferences were elicited, most participants preferred numerical information, alone or in combination with verbal labels. Conclusion: Numerical interpretation of verbal probabilities is extremely variable and does not correspond well to the numerical probabilities established by expert panels. Most patients appear to prefer quantitative risk information, alone or in combination with verbal labels. Health professionals should be aware that avoiding numeric information to describe risks may not match patient preferences, and that patients interpret verbal risk terms in a highly variable way. © 2021, The Author(s). |
| Keywords: | health literacy; risk communication; health numeracy; patient-provider communication |
| Journal Title: | Journal of General Internal Medicine |
| Volume: | 36 |
| Issue: | 12 |
| ISSN: | 0884-8734 |
| Publisher: | Springer |
| Date Published: | 2021-12-01 |
| Start Page: | 3820 |
| End Page: | 3829 |
| Language: | English |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11606-021-07050-7 |
| PROVIDER: | scopus |
| PMCID: | PMC8642516 |
| PUBMED: | 34357577 |
| DOI/URL: | |
| Notes: | Review -- Export Date: 3 January 2022 -- Source: Scopus |
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
Related MSK Work