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 (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Misselbrook, D.
Right arrow Articles by Armstrong, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Misselbrook, D.
Right arrow Articles by Armstrong, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 19, No. 1, 1-2
© Oxford University Press 2002

Editorial

Thinking about risk. Can doctors and patients talk the same language?

David Misselbrook and David Armstrong

Misselbrook D and Armstrong D. Thinking about risk. Can doctors and patients talk the same language? Family Practice 2002; 19: 1–2.

Received 31 July 2001; Accepted 3 September 2001.

Risk models are a powerful tool for assessing the biomedical significance of health problems and medical interventions. We know that if John Everyman is a smoker aged 70 with a BP of 152/85 mmHg and a normal cholesterol, then he has a 25–30% risk of a cardiovascular event (CVD event) over the next 5 years.1 Medical treatment will reduce that risk by 9% over 5 years to a range of 22–27%. We also know that if John Everyman never saw a doctor, but simply stopped smoking, his risk would fall to 15–20%, a much more impressive health gain.

. . . [Full Text of this Article]

References


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

Related articles in Family Practice:

A Research Information Sheet for Practices (RISP): a tool to facilitate research participation
Hilarie Bateman
Family Practice 2002 19: 691-697. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Public Health (Oxf)Home page
P. Webster and J. Austoker
Women's knowledge about breast cancer risk and their views of the purpose and implications of breast screening--a questionnaire survey
J. Public Health Med., September 1, 2006; 28(3): 197 - 202.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
P. Davies
Guidelines from the British Hypertension Society: Numbers are missing
BMJ, September 4, 2004; 329(7465): 570 - 570.
[Full Text]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
M. Desilva, M. A. T. Muskavitch, and J. P. Roche
Print Media Coverage of Antibiotic Resistance
Science Communication, September 1, 2004; 26(1): 31 - 43.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Fam PractHome page
F. M Walter and N. Britten
Patients' understanding of risk: a qualitative study of decision-making about the menopause and hormone replacement therapy in general practice
Fam. Pract., December 1, 2002; 19(6): 579 - 586.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Fam PractHome page
S. Iliffe and J. Manthorpe
Risk maps and three dimensional models: a rejoinder to Misselbrook and Armstrong
Fam. Pract., December 1, 2002; 19(6): 704 - 707.
[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]