“there’s a time bomb inside your..................., which could go off if you...
TRANSCRIPT
ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off
if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
bull have this procedurerdquo
bull take this medicationrdquo
bull have this testrdquo
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
context
bull knowledge translation multiple steps between research and uptake
bull healthcare consumerprofessional interface complex communication processes
bull for consumers facing tests or treatments awareness understanding decision
Aware Accepted Applicable Able Acted on Agreed Adhered to
Studies(primary research studies)
Systems
Synopses
Guidelines
Systematic Reviews
quality improvement (eg health services
governments)
clinicians Evidence Based Practicebull asking questionsbull other EBP steps
consumersbull awarenessbull understandingbull decision
research
myths feelings and
opinions
adapted from Glasziou P Haynes B ACP J Club 2005 Mar-Apr142(2)A8-10
ACP J Club 2005 Mar-Apr142(2)A8-10
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
potential benefits
bull for consumers more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done
background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
bull on communicating with healthcare consumers about the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions
bull to extend advice in previous publications General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients NHMRC 1993 10 tips for safer health care ( for consumers) ACSQHC 2003 Communicating with patients advice for medical practitioners AHECNHMRC 2004
bull for consumers (and carers and families) and clinicians
development process
bull systematic literature review to define principles
bull draft lsquotoolkitrsquo to address options for consumerclinician interactions barriers eg functional health literacy lsquoframingrsquo of data modes of communication sources of more information
bull modification after 75 responses to public consultation
bull publication and dissemination
systematic literature reviewissues
bull channels of communication (including oral print media multimedia decision aids and models but excluding nonverbal communication)
bull barriers to exchange and utilisation of information including the importance of cultural socioeconomic language and linguistic considerations for effective communication
bull efficacy and effectiveness of different communication channels content and styles for communicating the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions between consumers and clinicians in achieving outcomes including better knowledge and satisfaction
systematic literature reviewdatabases
bull MEDLINE
bull PsycINFO
bull Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Consumers and Communication Review Group
bull National Health and Medical Research Council
bull Health Technology Assessment Database
bull Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
context
bull knowledge translation multiple steps between research and uptake
bull healthcare consumerprofessional interface complex communication processes
bull for consumers facing tests or treatments awareness understanding decision
Aware Accepted Applicable Able Acted on Agreed Adhered to
Studies(primary research studies)
Systems
Synopses
Guidelines
Systematic Reviews
quality improvement (eg health services
governments)
clinicians Evidence Based Practicebull asking questionsbull other EBP steps
consumersbull awarenessbull understandingbull decision
research
myths feelings and
opinions
adapted from Glasziou P Haynes B ACP J Club 2005 Mar-Apr142(2)A8-10
ACP J Club 2005 Mar-Apr142(2)A8-10
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
potential benefits
bull for consumers more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done
background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
bull on communicating with healthcare consumers about the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions
bull to extend advice in previous publications General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients NHMRC 1993 10 tips for safer health care ( for consumers) ACSQHC 2003 Communicating with patients advice for medical practitioners AHECNHMRC 2004
bull for consumers (and carers and families) and clinicians
development process
bull systematic literature review to define principles
bull draft lsquotoolkitrsquo to address options for consumerclinician interactions barriers eg functional health literacy lsquoframingrsquo of data modes of communication sources of more information
bull modification after 75 responses to public consultation
bull publication and dissemination
systematic literature reviewissues
bull channels of communication (including oral print media multimedia decision aids and models but excluding nonverbal communication)
bull barriers to exchange and utilisation of information including the importance of cultural socioeconomic language and linguistic considerations for effective communication
bull efficacy and effectiveness of different communication channels content and styles for communicating the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions between consumers and clinicians in achieving outcomes including better knowledge and satisfaction
systematic literature reviewdatabases
bull MEDLINE
bull PsycINFO
bull Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Consumers and Communication Review Group
bull National Health and Medical Research Council
bull Health Technology Assessment Database
bull Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
context
bull knowledge translation multiple steps between research and uptake
bull healthcare consumerprofessional interface complex communication processes
bull for consumers facing tests or treatments awareness understanding decision
Aware Accepted Applicable Able Acted on Agreed Adhered to
Studies(primary research studies)
Systems
Synopses
Guidelines
Systematic Reviews
quality improvement (eg health services
governments)
clinicians Evidence Based Practicebull asking questionsbull other EBP steps
consumersbull awarenessbull understandingbull decision
research
myths feelings and
opinions
adapted from Glasziou P Haynes B ACP J Club 2005 Mar-Apr142(2)A8-10
ACP J Club 2005 Mar-Apr142(2)A8-10
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
potential benefits
bull for consumers more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done
background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
bull on communicating with healthcare consumers about the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions
bull to extend advice in previous publications General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients NHMRC 1993 10 tips for safer health care ( for consumers) ACSQHC 2003 Communicating with patients advice for medical practitioners AHECNHMRC 2004
bull for consumers (and carers and families) and clinicians
development process
bull systematic literature review to define principles
bull draft lsquotoolkitrsquo to address options for consumerclinician interactions barriers eg functional health literacy lsquoframingrsquo of data modes of communication sources of more information
bull modification after 75 responses to public consultation
bull publication and dissemination
systematic literature reviewissues
bull channels of communication (including oral print media multimedia decision aids and models but excluding nonverbal communication)
bull barriers to exchange and utilisation of information including the importance of cultural socioeconomic language and linguistic considerations for effective communication
bull efficacy and effectiveness of different communication channels content and styles for communicating the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions between consumers and clinicians in achieving outcomes including better knowledge and satisfaction
systematic literature reviewdatabases
bull MEDLINE
bull PsycINFO
bull Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Consumers and Communication Review Group
bull National Health and Medical Research Council
bull Health Technology Assessment Database
bull Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
Aware Accepted Applicable Able Acted on Agreed Adhered to
Studies(primary research studies)
Systems
Synopses
Guidelines
Systematic Reviews
quality improvement (eg health services
governments)
clinicians Evidence Based Practicebull asking questionsbull other EBP steps
consumersbull awarenessbull understandingbull decision
research
myths feelings and
opinions
adapted from Glasziou P Haynes B ACP J Club 2005 Mar-Apr142(2)A8-10
ACP J Club 2005 Mar-Apr142(2)A8-10
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
potential benefits
bull for consumers more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done
background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
bull on communicating with healthcare consumers about the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions
bull to extend advice in previous publications General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients NHMRC 1993 10 tips for safer health care ( for consumers) ACSQHC 2003 Communicating with patients advice for medical practitioners AHECNHMRC 2004
bull for consumers (and carers and families) and clinicians
development process
bull systematic literature review to define principles
bull draft lsquotoolkitrsquo to address options for consumerclinician interactions barriers eg functional health literacy lsquoframingrsquo of data modes of communication sources of more information
bull modification after 75 responses to public consultation
bull publication and dissemination
systematic literature reviewissues
bull channels of communication (including oral print media multimedia decision aids and models but excluding nonverbal communication)
bull barriers to exchange and utilisation of information including the importance of cultural socioeconomic language and linguistic considerations for effective communication
bull efficacy and effectiveness of different communication channels content and styles for communicating the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions between consumers and clinicians in achieving outcomes including better knowledge and satisfaction
systematic literature reviewdatabases
bull MEDLINE
bull PsycINFO
bull Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Consumers and Communication Review Group
bull National Health and Medical Research Council
bull Health Technology Assessment Database
bull Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
potential benefits
bull for consumers more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done
background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
bull on communicating with healthcare consumers about the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions
bull to extend advice in previous publications General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients NHMRC 1993 10 tips for safer health care ( for consumers) ACSQHC 2003 Communicating with patients advice for medical practitioners AHECNHMRC 2004
bull for consumers (and carers and families) and clinicians
development process
bull systematic literature review to define principles
bull draft lsquotoolkitrsquo to address options for consumerclinician interactions barriers eg functional health literacy lsquoframingrsquo of data modes of communication sources of more information
bull modification after 75 responses to public consultation
bull publication and dissemination
systematic literature reviewissues
bull channels of communication (including oral print media multimedia decision aids and models but excluding nonverbal communication)
bull barriers to exchange and utilisation of information including the importance of cultural socioeconomic language and linguistic considerations for effective communication
bull efficacy and effectiveness of different communication channels content and styles for communicating the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions between consumers and clinicians in achieving outcomes including better knowledge and satisfaction
systematic literature reviewdatabases
bull MEDLINE
bull PsycINFO
bull Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Consumers and Communication Review Group
bull National Health and Medical Research Council
bull Health Technology Assessment Database
bull Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
bull on communicating with healthcare consumers about the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions
bull to extend advice in previous publications General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients NHMRC 1993 10 tips for safer health care ( for consumers) ACSQHC 2003 Communicating with patients advice for medical practitioners AHECNHMRC 2004
bull for consumers (and carers and families) and clinicians
development process
bull systematic literature review to define principles
bull draft lsquotoolkitrsquo to address options for consumerclinician interactions barriers eg functional health literacy lsquoframingrsquo of data modes of communication sources of more information
bull modification after 75 responses to public consultation
bull publication and dissemination
systematic literature reviewissues
bull channels of communication (including oral print media multimedia decision aids and models but excluding nonverbal communication)
bull barriers to exchange and utilisation of information including the importance of cultural socioeconomic language and linguistic considerations for effective communication
bull efficacy and effectiveness of different communication channels content and styles for communicating the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions between consumers and clinicians in achieving outcomes including better knowledge and satisfaction
systematic literature reviewdatabases
bull MEDLINE
bull PsycINFO
bull Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Consumers and Communication Review Group
bull National Health and Medical Research Council
bull Health Technology Assessment Database
bull Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
development process
bull systematic literature review to define principles
bull draft lsquotoolkitrsquo to address options for consumerclinician interactions barriers eg functional health literacy lsquoframingrsquo of data modes of communication sources of more information
bull modification after 75 responses to public consultation
bull publication and dissemination
systematic literature reviewissues
bull channels of communication (including oral print media multimedia decision aids and models but excluding nonverbal communication)
bull barriers to exchange and utilisation of information including the importance of cultural socioeconomic language and linguistic considerations for effective communication
bull efficacy and effectiveness of different communication channels content and styles for communicating the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions between consumers and clinicians in achieving outcomes including better knowledge and satisfaction
systematic literature reviewdatabases
bull MEDLINE
bull PsycINFO
bull Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Consumers and Communication Review Group
bull National Health and Medical Research Council
bull Health Technology Assessment Database
bull Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
systematic literature reviewissues
bull channels of communication (including oral print media multimedia decision aids and models but excluding nonverbal communication)
bull barriers to exchange and utilisation of information including the importance of cultural socioeconomic language and linguistic considerations for effective communication
bull efficacy and effectiveness of different communication channels content and styles for communicating the risks benefits and outcomes of elective therapeutic and diagnostic interventions between consumers and clinicians in achieving outcomes including better knowledge and satisfaction
systematic literature reviewdatabases
bull MEDLINE
bull PsycINFO
bull Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Consumers and Communication Review Group
bull National Health and Medical Research Council
bull Health Technology Assessment Database
bull Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
systematic literature reviewdatabases
bull MEDLINE
bull PsycINFO
bull Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Consumers and Communication Review Group
bull National Health and Medical Research Council
bull Health Technology Assessment Database
bull Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
bull IntroductionSummary scope uses structure development
bull Part 1 5 principles
bull Part 2 3 case studies (1 diagnostic and 2 therapeutic) examples of 3 interventions to illustrate each of the 5 principles
bull Part 3
further information Australian and international organisations
websites and other resources bibliography composite bibliography for Parts 1 and 2
appendicies 1) development process 2) publication dissemination and implementation strategies 3) working committee members 4) list of individuals and organisations making submissions
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
principles for effective communication Principle 1
good communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals has many benefits
Principle 2 healthcare consumers vary in how much participation in decision-making they desire
Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
Principle 4 perceptions of risks and benefits are complex and healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals may have different priorities
Principle 5 information on risks and benefits needs to be comprehensive and accessible
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
bull backgroundbull what this means for healthcare consumersbull what this means for healthcare professionalsbull examplesbull putting this principle into practice
tools for healthcare consumers tools for healthcare professionals exercises based on clinical scenarios
bull find out more
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of
healthcare consumers
bull Anna is a 50year old Aboriginal woman who visits a nurse practitioner after being recalled for a check up for her non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus Anna is obese and has mild hypertension and a blood test shows that her blood glucose levels are poorly controlled She is on the highest doses of oral anti‑diabetic medications and most of the time she takes the medication as recommended The nurse practitioner explains to Anna that she will need to
start insulin injections to properly control her diabetes but Anna is reluctant to do so
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
questions for healthcare consumers
bull do I have particular cultural issues that are relevant in this consultation
bull are those issues affecting my feelings about the suggested options for treatment
bull what could I do to let the healthcare professional know about those issues
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
questions for healthcare professionals
bull how could I explore the source of this personrsquos anxiety
bull is there anything in what the person has told me that has cultural origins
bull if so how can I best meet the personrsquos needs
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
case studies of interventions
bull diagnosis prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing
bull therapy procedural coronary angioplasty pharmacological glucocorticoids
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
bull introduction background to the case study current status of communicating this intervention
bull applying each of the 5 principles to this case study
bull hypothetical examples from consumer or professional perspectives
bull resources
bull references
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
dissemination
bull healthcare consumer groupsindividuals
bull healthcare professional groupsindividuals
bull educational and training groupsinstitutions
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
ndash healthcare consumer groups carer organisations support groups
ndash healthcare professionals eg nurses medical practitioners dentists physiotherapists etc at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and their teachers and teaching and training institutions
ndash overseas-trained healthcare professionals eg certification boards
ndash professional development eg professional societies group practices area health services general practice divisions
ndash staff within health services
ndash medical defence organisations
ndash senior school and college students eg as part of a module about health
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy
Health literacy
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
What do we mean by literacy and health literacy
Literacy is the ability to read and write A person who has only basic literacy can do very simple things such as sign their name whereas someone who has functional literacy can recognise words and phrases in specific contexts
Health literacy is a form of functional literacy It refers to a personrsquos capacity to obtain process and understand information needed to make appropriate health decisions that is their ability to understand and act on health informationhelliphelliphellip
Being health literate means more than simply being able to read and use numbers someone who is health literate is likely to understand and use health information so that they can make the best decisions for their situation Even some well-educated people can have problems with health literacyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Health literacy also has a cultural dimension in that some cultures do not believe lsquoacceptedrsquo medical explanations (rather than not understanding them)
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
toolkit strengths
bull one document for consumers and professionalsbull the lsquoprinciplesrsquo focus on key issuesbull data on health literacybull lsquoframingrsquo of data
eg absoluterelative benefits of treatments
bull adaptable clinical scenarios
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
changing perceptions and comprehension by lsquoframingrsquo information
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull what is the lsquoNNTrsquo ie the lsquoNumber Needed to Treatrsquo for I person to benefit
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
which drug is she likely to choose
bull your patient is a healthy 62 years old woman who asks about preventing osteoporotic fractures As her clinician you explain to her that there 2 drugs which are known to prevent fractures
bull A will reduce her fracture risk by 50 over 3 years
bull B 1 in every 100 ( ie 1 ) women like her will have a fracture prevented if treated for 3 years
bull which drug will she probably choose A or B
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
which drug is she likely to choose
bull in this case the relative data ( A 50 ) appear much more impressive than the absolute data ( B 1 ) so she is likely to choose A
bull the treatments could be identical if the risk of fracture with no treatment over 3 years is 2
bull studies show that consumers non-clinical and clinical health professionals tend to choose data with big numbers for benefits from interventions
bull relative data however cannot be interpreted without a numerator or denominator so always provide absolute data at least with relative data when necessary
advertisements often use relative data with bigger numbers
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
changing perceptions by lsquoframingrsquo information
Emphasising one aspect of a health decision while leaving out another may change how people understand and perceive risks and benefits This effect is called lsquoframingrsquo of information For example health information can be framed as
negative or positivefor example giving the chances of an operation failing (negative framing) versus the chances of it succeeding (positive framing) loss or gain for example emphasising the risks or disadvantages of not having a particular screening procedure (loss) versus emphasising the benefits or advantages of having the procedure (gain)
understanding the difference between relative and absolute risk
Another factor that affects how people perceive risks and benefits is whether they are presented with absolute or relative riskshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
relative risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 absolute risk the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack from 005 (1 in 2000) to 0025 (1 in 4000) Although the drug reduces the chance of a heart attack by 50 when compared to not using the drug in real terms the risk for the individual patient is reduced from 1 in 2000 if the drug is not taken to 1 in 4000 if it is
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
bull you are discussing the pros and cons of having a mammogram with a 49 year old woman
bull you know that breast cancer occurs in about 11000 women of 45-50 years
bull you also know that a mammogram has a sensitivity of ~95 ( ie 5 of women with breast cancer have
a negative test) and a specificity of 95 ( ie 5 of women who donrsquot have breast cancer have a positive test)
bull what is the chance that a woman has breast cancer if the mammogram is positive (assume you know nothing else about this woman)
bull what is the correct answer 01 1 2 50 95 99 995
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
bull non-verbal communication during consultations
bull the specific communication needs of particular subgroups of people such as
infants children elderly
people from lower socio-economic groups
people from non-English speaking backgrounds
people from different cultures
boriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with low health literacy
people with mental health problem
people with intellectual disabilities
bull the complicated processes of communication when many different professionals are involved like hospitals
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
bull each lsquoprinciplersquo section is self contained
bull the introductionsummary (~ 4 pages) will be posted separately on the NHMRC website soon
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals
benefits bull for consumers
more informed decisions greater satisfaction with healthcare
bull for professionals greater professional satisfaction fewer complaints less litigation
bull for communities more lsquoappropriatersquo care doing what should be done not doing what should not be done see Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on
communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
further reading
bull Making decisions about tests and treatments Principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals NHMRC 2006 whole document nhmrcgovau
summary (not yet posted on website) nhmrcgovau
bull Trevena LJ et al A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 13-23
bull Greenberg PB Walker C Buchbinder R Optimising communication between consumers and clinicians Med J Aus 2006 (in press)
bull Health Literacy see J Gen Intern Med Aug 2006
bull Cochrane consumers and communication review group
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committee
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee
bull 3) Technical writers
bull 4) Systematic reviewers
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
acknowledgments
bull 1) Working Committeebull Dr Rosemary Aldrich
HAC public health physician journalism
bull AProfessor Rachelle Buchbinder rheumatology clinical epidemiology
bull Ms Rosemary Clerehan linguistics
bull Dr Peter Greenberg HAC general physician
bull Dr Peter Joseph HAC general practice
bull Professor Judy Lumby nursing
bull Dr Christine Walker sociology chronic disease alliance
bull Ms Ros Wood consumer
received attendance fees and travel support from NHMRC
bull 2) NHMRC Health Advisory Committee HAC members Ms Stephanie Gates Mr P Callan Ms A Peristeri Ms C Clutton
bull 3) Technical writers lsquoBIOTEXTrsquo Pty Ltd Canberra Hilary Cadman and Janet Salisbury
bull 4) Systematic reviewers National Cancer Control Initiative Dr B McEvoy and Dr F Howes La Trobe University Dr C Peterson AProf G
Murphy
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-
lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
principles for better communication between healthcare consumers and
healthcare professionals
- ldquoTherersquos a time bomb inside your which could go off if you donrsquothelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip
- PowerPoint Presentation
- lsquomaking decisions about tests and treatmentsrsquo National Health and Medical Research Council 2006
- context
- Slide 5
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals potential benefits
- background NHMRC HAC resolved to develop a lsquotoolkitrsquo in 2004
- development process
- systematic literature review issues
- systematic literature review databases
- Slide 11
- principles for effective communication
- 5 lsquoPrinciplersquo chapters structure
- clinical scenario from Principle 3 good communication depends on recognising and meeting the needs of healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare consumers
- questions for healthcare professionals
- case studies of interventions
- 3 lsquocase studyrsquo chapters structure
- dissemination
- dissemination educational and training groupsinstitutions
- toolkit strengths
- Slide 22
- Slide 23
- Slide 24
- Slide 25
- what is the lsquoNNTrsquo
- which drug is she likely to choose
- Slide 28
- Slide 29
- Slide 30
- Limitations 1) the lsquotoolkitrsquo does not address
- Limitations 2) the lsquotoolkitrsquo has 160 pages
- Slide 33
- better communication between healthcare consumers and healthcare professionals benefits
- Slide 35
- further reading
- Slide 37
- acknowledgments
- Slide 39
- Slide 40
-