Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Cheung, YB
dc.contributor.author Wee, HL
dc.contributor.author Thumboo, J
dc.contributor.author Goh, C
dc.contributor.author Pietrobon, R
dc.contributor.author Toh, HC
dc.contributor.author Yong, YF
dc.contributor.author Tan, SB
dc.coverage.spatial England
dc.date.accessioned 2011-06-21T17:29:39Z
dc.date.issued 2010-09-27
dc.identifier http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20868525
dc.identifier 1472-6947-10-55
dc.identifier.citation BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 2010, 10 pp. 55 - ?
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10161/4365
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: A Royal Statistical Society Working Party recently recommended that "Greater use should be made of numerical, as opposed to verbal, descriptions of risk" in first-in-man clinical trials. This echoed the view of many clinicians and psychologists about risk communication. As the clinical trial industry expands rapidly across the globe, it is important to understand risk communication in Asian countries. METHODS: We conducted a cognitive experiment about participation in a hypothetical clinical trial of a pain relief medication and a survey in cancer and arthritis patients in Singapore. In part 1 of the experiment, the patients received information about the risk of side effects in one of three formats (frequency, percentage and verbal descriptor) and in one of two sequences (from least to most severe and from most to least severe), and were asked about their willingness to participate. In part 2, the patients received information about the risk in all three formats, in the same sequence, and were again asked about their willingness to participate. A survey of preference for risk presentation methods and usage of verbal descriptors immediately followed. RESULTS: Willingness to participate and the likelihood of changing one's decision were not affected by the risk presentation methods. Most patients indicated a preference for the frequency format, but patients with primary school or no formal education were indifferent. While the patients used the verbal descriptors "very common", "common" and "very rare" in ways similar to the European Commission's Guidelines, their usage of the descriptors "uncommon" and "rare" was substantially different from the EU's. CONCLUSION: In this sample of Asian cancer and arthritis patients, risk presentation format had no impact on willingness to participate in a clinical trial. However, there is a clear preference for the frequency format. The lay use of verbal descriptors was substantially different from the EU's.
dc.format.extent 55 - ?
dc.language eng
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.relation.ispartof BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
dc.relation.isversionof 10.1186/1472-6947-10-55
dc.subject Adult
dc.subject Analysis of Variance
dc.subject Arthritis
dc.subject Clinical Trials as Topic
dc.subject Decision Making
dc.subject Educational Status
dc.subject Female
dc.subject Humans
dc.subject Interviews as Topic
dc.subject Male
dc.subject Marital Status
dc.subject Middle Aged
dc.subject Neoplasms
dc.subject Patient Acceptance of Health Care
dc.subject Patient Education as Topic
dc.subject Patient Participation
dc.subject Patient Preference
dc.subject Risk
dc.subject Risk Reduction Behavior
dc.subject Singapore
dc.subject Verbal Behavior
dc.title Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey.
dc.title.alternative en_US
dc.type Journal Article
dc.description.version Version of Record en_US
duke.date.pubdate 2010-9-27 en_US
duke.description.endpage 55 en_US
duke.description.issue en_US
duke.description.startpage 55 en_US
duke.description.volume 10 en_US
dc.relation.journal Bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making en_US
pubs.author-url http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20868525
pubs.organisational-group /Duke
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Faculty
pubs.publication-status Published online
pubs.volume 10
dc.identifier.eissn 1472-6947

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record