Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Family Practice
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (21)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nexøe, J.
Right arrow Articles by Nielsen, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nexøe, J.
Right arrow Articles by Nielsen, J. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 19, No. 1, 3-6
© Oxford University Press 2002

Original Paper

Danish GPs' perception of disease risk and benefit of prevention

Jørgen Nexøe, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Jakob Kragstrup, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen and Jesper Bo Nielsen

Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Winsløwparken 19, DK-5000 Odense C, Denmark.

Background. Uncertainty and risk are central issues in relation to health and health care services. Healthy individuals do not necessarily fall ill, despite the presence of risk factors. It has been documented that doctors, health service administrators and patients are more inclined to choose interventions against risk factors when information about the effects is presented in terms of relative risk reductions rather than absolute risk reductions.

Objectives. The objective of the study was to gain better insight into how GPs perceive risk of disease, and how this perception is influenced by the way the risk is presented, e.g. whether changes in risk are presented in absolute or relative terms.

Methods. Questionnaires with clinical episodes were sent to 1500 Danish GPs. The GPs were randomized into four groups of 375, who all received the same case story with information about risk reduction achieved through medical treatment phrased in terms of either relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat or all of the aforementioned terms of risk reduction. The GPs were asked whether they would recommend medical treatment as primary prevention, knowing the case story and expected risk reduction.

Results. The GPs' attitude towards recommending medical treatment was dependent on the phrasing of risk reductions. Seventy-two per cent of doctors who received all information on risk reductions would definitely or probably recommend medication, while 91% would recommend medication if information only about relative risk reduction was given, and 63% would recommend medication if information was given in terms of absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat.

Conclusion. In order to advise patients in a rational way, in addition to knowledge of the patients' preferences, doctors need to take into account all available measures of risk reductions.

Keywords. General practice, number needed to treat, risk-reducing.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Family Practice:

The final version of the Patient Perspective Survey (PPS): a new tool to improve consultation outcome and patient participation in general practice patients with complex health problems. Doctors' and patients' evaluation and guidelines for clinical use
Even Lærum, Siri Steine, Morten Finckenhagen, and Arnstein Finset
Family Practice 2002 19: 264-271. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
J. M. Griffith, C. L. Lewis, S. Hawley, S. L. Sheridan, and M. P. Pignone
Randomized Trial of Presenting Absolute v. Relative Risk Reduction in the Elicitation of Patient Values for Heart Disease Prevention With Conjoint Analysis
Med Decis Making, March 1, 2009; 29(2): 167 - 174.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Scand J Public HealthHome page
J. Nexoe, P. A. Halvorsen, and I. S. Kristiansen
Review Article: Critiques of the risk concept -- valid or not?
Scand J Public Health, December 1, 2007; 35(6): 648 - 654.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
P. A. Halvorsen, R. Selmer, and I. S. Kristiansen
Different Ways to Describe the Benefits of Risk-Reducing Treatments: A Randomized Trial
Ann Intern Med, June 19, 2007; 146(12): 848 - 856.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
P. A. Halvorsen and I. S. Kristiansen
Decisions on Drug Therapies by Numbers Needed to Treat: A Randomized Trial
Arch Intern Med, May 23, 2005; 165(10): 1140 - 1146.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Fam PractHome page
J Nexoe, I. Kristiansen, D Gyrd-Hansen, and J. Nielsen
Influence of number needed to treat, costs and outcome on preferences for a preventive drug
Fam. Pract., February 1, 2005; 22(1): 126 - 131.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
R. F Heller, I. Buchan, R. Edwards, G. Lyratzopoulos, P. McElduff, and S. S. Leger
Communicating risks at the population level: application of population impact numbers
BMJ, November 15, 2003; 327(7424): 1162 - 1165.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Fam PractHome page
K. Ballard
Understanding risk: women's perceived risk of menopause-related disease and the value they place on preventive hormone replacement therapy
Fam. Pract., December 1, 2002; 19(6): 591 - 595.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Fam PractHome page
I. S. Kristiansen, J. Nexoe, D. Gyrd-Hansen, and J. B. Nielsen
NNT is not easily understood
Fam. Pract., October 1, 2002; 19(5): 566 - 566.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.