Poorly presented risk statistics could misinform health decisions

Mar 16, 2011

Choosing the appropriate way to present risk statistics is key to helping people make well-informed decisions. A new Cochrane Systematic Review found that health professionals and consumers may change their perceptions when the same risks and risk reductions are presented using alternative statistical formats.

Risk statistics can be used persuasively to present health interventions in different lights. The different ways of expressing risk can prove confusing and there has been much debate about how to improve the communication of .

For example, you could read that a drug cuts the risk of hip fracture over a three year period by 50%. At first sight, this would seem like an incredible breakthrough. In fact, what it might equally mean is that without taking the drug 1% of people have fractures, and with the drug only 0.5% do. Now the benefit seems to be much less. Another way of phrasing it would be that 200 people need to take the drug for three years to prevent one incidence of hip fracture. In this case, the drug could start to look a rather expensive option.

have terms to describe each type of presentation. The statement of a 50% reduction is typically expressed as a Relative Risk Reduction (RRR). Saying that 0.5% fewer people will have broken hips is an Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR). Saying that 200 people need to be treated to prevent one occurrence is referred to as the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). Furthermore, these effects can be shown as a frequency, where the effect is expressed as 1 out of 200 people avoiding a .

In the new study, Cochrane researchers reviewed data from 35 studies assessing understanding of risk statistics by health professionals and consumers. They found that participants in the studies understood frequencies better than probabilities. Relative risk reductions, as in "the drug cuts the risk by 50%", were less well understood. Participants perceived risk reductions to be inappropriately greater compared to the same benefits presented using absolute risk or NNT.

"People perceive risk reductions to be larger and are more persuaded to adopt a health intervention when its effect is presented in relative terms," said Elie Akl of the Department of Medicine, University at Buffalo, USA and first author on the review. "What we don't know yet is whether doctors or policymakers might actually make different decisions based on the way health benefits are presented."

Although the researchers say further studies are required to explore how different risk formats affect behaviour, they believe there are strong logical arguments for not reporting relative values alone. "Relative risk statistics do not allow a fair comparison of benefits and harms in the same way as absolute values do," said lead researcher Holger Schünemann of the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. "If relative risk is to be used, then the absolute change in risk should also be given, as relative risk alone is likely to misinform decisions."

Explore further: Oil-swishing craze: Snake oil or all-purpose remedy?

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Just a numbers game? Making sense of health statistics

Oct 10, 2008

Presidential candidates use them to persuade voters, drug companies use them to sell their products, and the media spin them in all kinds of ways, but nobody - candidates, reporters, let alone health consumers - understands ...

Value of drugs for pre-osteoporosis exaggerated

Jan 18, 2008

A series of recent scientific publications have exaggerated the benefits and underplayed the harms of drugs to treat pre-osteoporosis or “osteopenia” potentially encouraging treatment in millions of low risk women, warn ...

A safe bet or Russian roulette?

Aug 17, 2007

Risks are borne voluntarily, as in the case of medical tests or elective surgery, or thrust upon us, as in the case of exposure to environmental contamination. How should the average person interpret the daily flood of news ...

Once-a-year drug reduces fractures from osteoporosis

May 02, 2007

A treatment for osteoporosis delivered once a year is as effective as current monthly or weekly osteoporosis regimens at reducing the incidence of bone fractures, according to a new study led by a UCSF research team.

Recommended for you

Suddenly health insurance is not for sale

3 hours ago

(HealthDay)— Darlene Tucker, an independent insurance broker in Scotts Hill, Tenn., says health insurers in her area aren't selling policies year-round anymore.

Study: Half of jailed NYC youths have brain injury (Update)

4 hours ago

About half of all 16- to 18-year-olds coming into New York City's jails say they had a traumatic brain injury before being incarcerated, most caused by assaults, according to a new study that's the latest in a growing body ...

Autonomy and relationships among 'good life' goals

11 hours ago

Young adults with Down syndrome have a strong desire to be self-sufficient by living independently and having a job, according to a study into the meaning of wellbeing among young people affected by the disorder.

User comments : 0

More news stories

Treating depression in Parkinson's patients

A group of scientists from the University of Kentucky College of Medicine and the Sanders-Brown Center on Aging has found interesting new information in a study on depression and neuropsychological function in Parkinson's ...