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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Diana Lucia Martinez, Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed, Matthew B. Schlenker
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