Heuristics: foundations for a novel approach to medical decision making.

Medical decision-making is a complex process that often takes place during uncertainty, that is, when knowledge, time, and resources are limited. How can we ensure good decisions? We present research on heuristics-simple rules of thumb-and discuss how medical decision-making can benefit from these tools. We challenge the common view that heuristics are only second-best solutions by showing that they can be more accurate, faster, and easier to apply in comparison to more complex strategies. Using the example of fast-and-frugal decision trees, we illustrate how heuristics can be studied and implemented in the medical context. Finally, we suggest how a heuristic-friendly culture supports the study and application of heuristics as complementary strategies to existing decision rules.

Priorities for emergency department syncope research.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: There is limited evidence to guide the emergency department (ED) evaluation and management of syncope. The First International Workshop on Syncope Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department identified key research questions and methodological standards essential to advancing the science of ED-based syncope research. METHODS: We recruited a multinational panel of syncope experts. A preconference survey identified research priorities, which were refined during and after the conference through an iterative review process. RESULTS: There were 31 participants from 7 countries who represented 10 clinical and methodological specialties. High-priority research recommendations were organized around a conceptual model of ED decisionmaking for syncope, and they address definition, cohort selection, risk stratification, and management. CONCLUSION: We convened a multispecialty group of syncope experts to identify the most pressing knowledge gaps and defined a high-priority research agenda to improve the care of patients with syncope in the ED.

Communicating Relative Risk Changes with Baseline Risk: Presentation Format and Numeracy Matter.

BACKGROUND: Treatment benefits and harms are often communicated as relative risk reductions and increases, which are frequently misunderstood by doctors and patients. One suggestion for improving understanding of such risk information is to also communicate the baseline risk. We investigated 1) whether the presentation format of the baseline risk influences understanding of relative risk changes and 2) the mediating role of people's numeracy skills. METHOD: We presented laypeople (N = 1234) with a hypothetical scenario about a treatment that decreased (Experiments 1a, 2a) or increased (Experiments 1b, 2b) the risk of heart disease. Baseline risk was provided as a percentage or a frequency. In a forced-choice paradigm, the participants' task was to judge the risk in the treatment group given the relative risk reduction (or increase) and the baseline risk. Numeracy was assessed using the Lipkus 11-item scale. RESULTS: Communicating baseline risk in a frequency format facilitated correct understanding of a treatment's benefits and harms, whereas a percentage format often impeded understanding. For example, many participants misinterpreted a relative risk reduction as referring to an absolute risk reduction. Participants with higher numeracy generally performed better than those with lower numeracy, but all participants benefitted from a frequency format. Limitations are that we used a hypothetical medical scenario and a nonrepresentative sample. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting baseline risk in a frequency format improves understanding of relative risk information, whereas a percentage format is likely to lead to misunderstandings. People's numeracy skills play an important role in correctly understanding medical information. Overall, communicating treatment benefits and harms in the form of relative risk changes remains problematic, even when the baseline risk is explicitly provided.

When Dread Risks Are More Dreadful than Continuous Risks: Comparing Cumulative Population Losses over Time.

People show higher sensitivity to dread risks, rare events that kill many people at once, compared with continuous risks, relatively frequent events that kill many people over a longer period of time. The different reaction to dread risks is often considered a bias: If the continuous risk causes the same number of fatalities, it should not be perceived as less dreadful. We test the hypothesis that a dread risk may have a stronger negative impact on the cumulative population size over time in comparison with a continuous risk causing the same number of fatalities. This difference should be particularly strong when the risky event affects children and young adults who would have produced future offspring if they had survived longer. We conducted a series of simulations, with varying assumptions about population size, population growth, age group affected by risky event, and the underlying demographic model. Results show that dread risks affect the population more severely over time than continuous risks that cause the same number of fatalities, suggesting that fearing a dread risk more than a continuous risk is an ecologically rational strategy.

Do the media provide transparent health information? A cross-cultural comparison of public information about the HPV vaccine.

The media is a powerful tool for informing the public about health treatments. In particular, the Internet has gained importance as a widely valued source for health information for parents and adolescents. Nonetheless, traditional sources, such as newspapers, continue to report on health innovations. But do websites and newspaper reports provide balanced information? We performed a systematic media analysis to evaluate and compare media coverage of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine on websites and in newspapers in Germany and Spain. We assessed to what extent the media provide complete (pros and cons), transparent (absolute instead of relative numbers), and correct information about the epidemiology and etiology of cervical cancer as well as the effectiveness and costs of the HPV vaccine. As a basis for comparison, a facts box containing current scientific evidence about cervical cancer and the HPV vaccine was developed. The media analysis included 61 websites and 141 newspaper articles in Germany, and 41 websites and 293 newspaper articles in Spain. Results show that 57% of German websites and 43% of German newspaper reports communicated correct estimates of epidemiological data, whereas in Spain 39% of the websites and 20% of the newspaper did so. While two thirds of Spanish websites explicitly mentioned causes of cervical cancer as well as spontaneous recovery, German websites communicated etiological information less frequently. Findings reveal that correct estimates about the vaccine's effectiveness were mentioned in 10% of German websites and 6% of German newspaper reports; none of the Spanish newspaper reports and 2% of Spanish websites reported effectiveness correctly. Only German websites (13%) explicitly referred to scientific uncertainty regarding the vaccine's evaluation. We conclude that the media lack balanced reporting on the dimensions completeness, transparency, and correctness. We propose standards for more balanced reporting on websites and in newspapers.