Risk communication in cataract surgery
Purpose Risk communication is an integral aspect of shared decision-making and evidence-based patient choice. There is currently no recommended way of communicating risks and benefits of cataract surgery to patients. This study aims to investigate whether the way this information is presented influe...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open Ophthalmology |
| Online Access: | https://bmjophth.bmj.com/content/9/1/e001613.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832086643028262912 |
|---|---|
| author | Diana Lucia Martinez Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed Matthew B. Schlenker |
| author_facet | Diana Lucia Martinez Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed Matthew B. Schlenker |
| author_sort | Diana Lucia Martinez |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose Risk communication is an integral aspect of shared decision-making and evidence-based patient choice. There is currently no recommended way of communicating risks and benefits of cataract surgery to patients. This study aims to investigate whether the way this information is presented influences patients’ perception of how risky surgery will be.Methods and analysis Two-arm parallel randomised study and patients referred for cataract surgery were assigned to receive information framed either positively (99% chance of no adverse effects) or negatively (1% chance of adverse effects). Subsequently, patients rated their perceived risk of experiencing surgical side effects on a 1–6 scale.Results This study included 100 patients, 50 in each study group. Median (IQR) risk perception was 2 (1–2) in the positive framing group and 3 (1–3) in the negative framing group (p<0.0001). Risk framing was the only factor that was significant in risk perception, with no differences found by other patient clinical or demographic characteristics.Conclusion Patients who received positive framing reported lower risk scores for cataract surgery than patients who received negative framing. Patient factors were not identified as significant determinants in patients’ perceived risk. Larger longitudinal studies are warranted to further investigate. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-50785b76c5ba4e1d99208d7a7a21db13 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2397-3269 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj-art-50785b76c5ba4e1d99208d7a7a21db132025-02-06T10:10:10ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open Ophthalmology2397-32692024-03-019110.1136/bmjophth-2023-001613Risk communication in cataract surgeryDiana Lucia Martinez0Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed1Matthew B. Schlenker2Prism Eye Institute, Mississauga, Ontario, CanadaPrism Eye Institute, Mississauga, Ontario, CanadaPrism Eye Institute, Mississauga, Ontario, CanadaPurpose Risk communication is an integral aspect of shared decision-making and evidence-based patient choice. There is currently no recommended way of communicating risks and benefits of cataract surgery to patients. This study aims to investigate whether the way this information is presented influences patients’ perception of how risky surgery will be.Methods and analysis Two-arm parallel randomised study and patients referred for cataract surgery were assigned to receive information framed either positively (99% chance of no adverse effects) or negatively (1% chance of adverse effects). Subsequently, patients rated their perceived risk of experiencing surgical side effects on a 1–6 scale.Results This study included 100 patients, 50 in each study group. Median (IQR) risk perception was 2 (1–2) in the positive framing group and 3 (1–3) in the negative framing group (p<0.0001). Risk framing was the only factor that was significant in risk perception, with no differences found by other patient clinical or demographic characteristics.Conclusion Patients who received positive framing reported lower risk scores for cataract surgery than patients who received negative framing. Patient factors were not identified as significant determinants in patients’ perceived risk. Larger longitudinal studies are warranted to further investigate.https://bmjophth.bmj.com/content/9/1/e001613.full |
| spellingShingle | Diana Lucia Martinez Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed Matthew B. Schlenker Risk communication in cataract surgery BMJ Open Ophthalmology |
| title | Risk communication in cataract surgery |
| title_full | Risk communication in cataract surgery |
| title_fullStr | Risk communication in cataract surgery |
| title_full_unstemmed | Risk communication in cataract surgery |
| title_short | Risk communication in cataract surgery |
| title_sort | risk communication in cataract surgery |
| url | https://bmjophth.bmj.com/content/9/1/e001613.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dianaluciamartinez riskcommunicationincataractsurgery AT iqbalikekahmed riskcommunicationincataractsurgery AT matthewbschlenker riskcommunicationincataractsurgery |