Abstract
Some experts have argued that patients should routinely be told the specific magnitude and absolute probability of potential risks and benefits of screening tests. This position is motivated by the idea that framing risk information in ways that are less precise violates the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and its application in informed consent or shared decision-making. In this Perspective, we consider a number of problems with this view that have not been adequately addressed. The most important challenges stem from the danger that patients will misunderstand the information or have irrational responses to it. Any initiative in this area should take such factors into account and should consider carefully how to apply the ethical principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
General Medical Council. Seeking patients’ consent: the ethical considerations. [Internet]. London; c1998-2006. Accessed 7 March 2008. Available from: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/current/library/consent.asp#33.
Thornton H, Edwards A, Baum M. Women need better information about routine mammography. BMJ. 2003;327(7406):101–3, (July 10, 2003).
Gigerenzer G. Why does framing influence judgment? J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(11):960–1, (Nov).
Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):741–4, (Sep 27).
Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):745–8, (Sep 27).
Barratt A, Trevena L, Davey HM, McCaffery K. Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening. BMJ. 2004;329(7464):507–10, (Aug 28).
Thomson R, Edwards A, Grey J. Risk communication in the clinical consultation. Clin Med. 2005;5(5):465–9, (Sep–Oct).
Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1):13–23, (Feb).
Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417, (August 26).
Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001:472.
Braddock CH, Fihn SD, Levinson W, Jonsen AR, Pearlman RA. How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions informed decision making in the outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(6):339–45.
Braddock CH III, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282(24):2313–20, (December 22).
Slaytor EK, Ward JE. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. BMJ. 1998;317(7153):263–4, (July 25).
Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2004;328(7432):148, (January 17, 2004).
Chamot E, Perneger TV. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55(11):799–803, (November 1).
Domenighetti G, D’Avanzo B, Egger M, Berrino F, Perneger T, Mosconi P, et al. Women’s perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population-based survey in four countries [see comment]. Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(5):816–21, (Oct).
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ Jr, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291(1):71–8, (Jan 7).
Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986:408.
Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med. 1999;17(4):285–94, (Nov).
Sieber WJ, Kaplan RM. Informed adherence: the need for shared medical decision making. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(5 Suppl):233S–40S, (Oct).
Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. A suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):56–66, (Jan).
Misselbrook D, Armstrong D. Patients’ responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension [see comment]. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(465):276–9, (Apr).
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information—a review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001;6(1):61–82, (Jan–Mar).
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). [Internet] Rockville, MD; 2008 [updated 2008; cited 2008 March 7]; Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm
Barratt A, Howard K, Irwig L, Salkeld G, Houssami N. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. BMJ. 2005;330(7497):936, (April 23).
Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ. 1998;317(7154):307–12, (Aug 1).
Mandel JS, Church TR, Ederer F, Bond JH. Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(5):434–7, (Mar 3).
O’Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V, Tetroe J, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ. 1999;319(7212):731–4, (September 18, 1999).
Skolbekken JA. Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs [see comment]. BMJ. 1998;316(7149):1956–8, (Jun 27).
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):966–72, (Dec 1).
Vahabi M. The impact of health communication on health-related decision making: A review of evidence. Health Educ. 2007;107(1):27–41.
Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(11):884–92, (Nov).
Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):37–44, (Jan–Feb).
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The effectiveness of a primer to help people understand risk: two randomized trials in distinct populations. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(4):256–65, (February 20, 2007).
Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med. 1998;73(5):538–40, (May).
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ. 2002;324(7341):827–30, (April 6).
Hoffman JR, Wilkes MS, Day FC, Bell DS, Higa JK. The roulette wheel: an aid to informed decision making. PLoS Medicine. 2006;3(6), June 1.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J Econom Soc. 1979;47(2):263–92, (Mar).
Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Measuring patients’ preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(Suppl 1):i2–8, (Sep).
Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:806–20.
McKenna FP. It won’t happen to me: unrealistic optimism or illusion of control? Br J Psychol. 1993;84(1):39–50.
Baron J. Thinking and deciding, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000:570.
Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve risk. A dual-processes approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004;13(2):60–6.
Lloyd AJ. The extent of patients’ understanding of the risk of treatments. Qual Saf Health Care. 2001;10:14i–8, (September 1).
O’Neill O. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002:228.
Yarnall KSH, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–41, (April 1).
Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R, Sheridan SL, Braddock CH 3rd, Kaplan RM, et al. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(4):293–300, (Aug 16).
Manson NC, O’Neill O. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007:226.
Schneider CE. The practice of autonomy: patients, doctors, and medical decisions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998, (307).
Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(2):102–14, (Feb).
Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA. Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4(1):23–30, (Jan–Feb).
Whitney SN. A new model of medical decisions: exploring the limits of shared decision making. Med Decis Mak. 2003;23(4):275–80, (July 1).
Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(1):54–9, (January 6).
Tauber AI. Patient autonomy and the ethics of responsibility. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005, P. (328).
Adab P, Marshall T, Rouse A, Randhawa B, Sangha H, Bhangoo N. Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women’s willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(8):589–93, (August 1).
Wolf AMD, Schorling JB. Does informed consent alter elderly patients’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(1):24–30.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Thomas Imperiale, MD, and Greg Sachs, MD, for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We would also like to thank audiences who participated in discussion of earlier versions of this work at the Seminars in Medical Humanities and Bioethics, Medical Humanities Program, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA and at the Poynter Health Care Ethics Seminar, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
The authors were supported in part by grants from the Indiana Genomics Initiative, which is funded by the Lilly Endowment (PHS, EMM), and from the Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation to the Indiana University Center for Bioethics (PHS, EMM).
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Meslin serves as a consultant to Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schwartz, P.H., Meslin, E.M. The Ethics of Information: Absolute Risk Reduction and Patient Understanding of Screening. J GEN INTERN MED 23, 867–870 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0616-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0616-y