Most patients with an increased risk for sepsis-related morbidity or death do not recognize sepsis as a medical emergency: results of a survey study using case vignettes.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a medical emergency with potentially life-threatening consequences. Patients play a crucial role in preventing and recognizing sepsis at an early stage. The understanding of risk groups' sepsis knowledge and their ability to use this knowledge to recognize sepsis as an emergency is incomplete. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in Germany and included a sample of 740 persons stratified by age (< 60 years, ≥ 60 years), specific chronic diseases (e.g. diabetes, chronic diseases, cancer), and region (Berlin/Brandenburg vs. other federal states of Germany). Standardized questionnaires were administered by a market research institute through online, telephone, or face-to-face methods. We assessed sepsis knowledge through a series of questions and the ability to recognize sepsis as an emergency through five case vignettes. To identify predictors of sepsis knowledge and the ability to recognize sepsis as a medical emergency, we conducted multiple linear regressions. RESULTS: Of the 36 items on sepsis knowledge, participants answered less than 50 per cent correctly (mean 44.1%; standard deviation (SD) 20.1). Most patients knew that sepsis is a defensive host response to infection (75.9%), but only 30.8% knew that vaccination can prevent infections that lead to sepsis. Across the five vignettes, participants identified sepsis as an emergency in only 1.33 of all cases on average (SD = 1.27). Sepsis knowledge was higher among participants who were older, female, and more highly educated and who reported more extensive health information seeking behaviour. The ability to recognize sepsis as an emergency was higher among younger participants, participants without chronic diseases, and participants with higher health literacy, but it was not significantly associated with sepsis knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Risk groups showed low levels of knowledge regarding the preventive importance of vaccination and a low ability to recognize sepsis as a medical emergency. Higher levels of sepsis knowledge alone were not sufficient to improve the ability to identify sepsis as a medical emergency. It is crucial to develop effective educational strategies-especially for persons with lower education levels and infrequent health information seeking behaviour-that not only transfer but also facilitate the choice of appropriate actions, such as seeking timely emergency care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00024561. Registered 9 March 2021.

Educating physicians on strong opioids by descriptive versus simulated-experience formats: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term prescriptions of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain-which are not supported by scientific evidence-suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Because risk perceptions and behaviors can differ depending on whether people learn about risks through description or experience, we investigated the effects of descriptive versus simulated-experience educative formats on physicians' risk perceptions of strong opioids and their prescription behavior for managing chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Three hundred general practitioners and 300 pain specialists in Germany-enrolled separately in two independent exploratory randomized controlled online trials-were randomly assigned to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated-experience format (interactive simulation). PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: Objective risk perception (numerical estimates of opioids' benefits and harms), actual prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain. SECONDARY ENDPOINT: Implementation of intended prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain. RESULTS: Both formats improved the proportion of correct numerical estimates of strong opioids' benefits and harms immediately after intervention, with no notable differences between formats. Compared to description, simulated experience led to significantly lower reported actual prescription rates for strong and/or weak opioids, and was more effective at increasing prescription rates for non-drug-based therapies (e.g., means of opioid reduction) from baseline to follow-up for both general practitioners and pain specialists. Simulated experience also resulted in a higher implementation of intended behavior for some drug-based and non-drug-based therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The two formats, which recruit different cognitive processes, may serve different risk-communication goals: If the goal is to improve exact risk perception, descriptive and simulated-experience formats are likely to be equally suitable. If, however, the goal is to boost less risky prescription habits, simulated experience may be the better choice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00020358 (German Clinical Trials Register, first registration: 07/01/2020).

Women's perception, attitudes, and intended behavior towards predictive epigenetic risk testing for female cancers in 5 European countries: a cross-sectional online survey.

BACKGROUND: Epigenetic markers might be used for risk-stratifying cancer screening and prevention programs in the future. Although the clinical utility of consequent epigenetic tests for risk stratification is yet to be proven, successful adoption into clinical practice also requires the public's acceptance of such tests. This cross-sectional online survey study sought to learn for the first time about European women's perceptions, attitudes, and intended behavior regarding a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer (breast, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial) risks. METHODS: 1675 women (40-75 years) from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden), drawn from online panels by the survey sampling company Harris Interactive (Germany), participated in an online survey where they first received online leaflet information on a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks and were subsequently queried by an online questionnaire on their desire to know their female cancer risks, their perception of the benefit-to-harm ratio of an epigenetic test predicting female cancer risks, reasons in favor and disfavor of taking such a test, and their intention to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks. RESULTS: Most women desired information on each of their female cancer risks, 56.6% (95% CI: 54.2-59.0) thought the potential benefits outweighed potential harms, and 75% (72.0-77.8) intended to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks if freely available. Results varied considerably by country with women from Germany and the Czech Republic being more reserved about this new form of testing than women from the other three European countries. The main reason cited in favor of a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks was its potential to guide healthcare strategies and lifestyle changes in the future, and in its disfavor was that it may increase cancer worry and coerce unintended lifestyle changes and healthcare interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A successful introduction of predictive epigenetic tests for cancer risks will require a balanced and transparent communication of the benefit-to-harm ratio of healthcare pathways resulting from such tests in order to curb unjustified expectations and at the same time to prevent unjustified concerns.

The Barrier to Informed Choice in Cancer Screening: Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients.

An efficient health care requires both informed doctors and patients. Our current healthcare system falls short on both counts. Most doctors and patients do not understand the available medical evidence. To illustrate the extent of the problem in the setting of cancer screening: In a representative sample of some 5000 women in nine European countries, 92% overestimated the reduction of breast cancer mortality by mammography by a factor of 10-200, or did not know. For a similar sample of about 5000 men with respect to PSA screening, this number was 89%. Of more than 300 US citizens who regularly attended one or more cancer screening test, more than 90% had never been informed about the biggest harms of screening-overdiagnosis and overtreatment-by their physicians. Among 160 German gynecologists, some 80% did not understand the positive predictive value of a positive mammogram, with estimates varying between 1 and 90%. In a national sample of 412 US primary care physicians, 47% mistakenly believed that if more cancers are detected by a screening test, this proves that the test saves lives, and 76% wrongly thought that if screen-detected cancers have better 5-year survival rates than cancers detected by symptoms, this would prove that the screening test saves lives. And of 20 German gynecologists, not a single one provided a woman with all information on the benefits and harms of cancer screening required in order to make an informed choice. Why is risk literacy so scarce in health care? One frequently discussed explanation assumes that people suffer from cognitive deficits that make them predictably irrational and basically hopeless at dealing with risks, so that they need to be "nudged" into healthy behavior. Yet research has demonstrated that the problem lies less in stable cognitive deficits than in how information is presented to physicians and patients. This includes biased reporting in medical journals, brochures, and the media that uses relative risks and other misleading statistics, motivated by conflicts of interest and defensive medicine that do not promote informed physicians and patients. What can be done? Every medical school should teach its students how to understand evidence in general and health statistics in particular. To cultivate informed patients, elementary and high schools should start teaching the mathematics of uncertainty-statistical thinking. Guidelines about complete and transparent reporting in journals, brochures, and the media need to be better enforced, and laws need to be changed in order to protect patients and doctors alike against the practice of defensive medicine instead of encouraging it. A critical mass of informed citizens will not resolve all healthcare problems, but it can constitute a major triggering factor for better care.

How to convince the vaccine-hesitant? An ease-of-access nudge, but not risk-related information increased Covid vaccination-related behaviors in the unvaccinated.

In this study, we contrast how different benefit and harm information formats and the presence or absence of an ease-of-access nudge may facilitate COVID vaccination uptake for a sample of 620 unvaccinated Dutch adults at a timepoint when the vaccine had been widely available for more than a month. Using a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design, we varied the information format on mRNA COVID vaccination statistics (generic text vs. facts box) and an affirmative nudge emphasizing the ease of making a vaccination appointment (absent vs. present). We assessed the acceptance of the vaccination information provided, perceptions on the vaccination, and whether participants directly visited a COVID vaccination appointment website. Whereas the facts box did not significantly affect participants' information acceptance, vaccination attitudes, intentions, and link clicking, the affirmative nudge alongside an online link systematically increased the likelihood of clicking on the link to make a vaccination appointment. A verbal nudge emphasizing the ease of vaccine accessibility is more likely to increase vaccination uptake in an unvaccinated population than informational campaigns on vaccine effectiveness.

General practitioners' risk literacy and real-world prescribing of potentially hazardous drugs: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of medical care is a pervasive problem. Studies using hypothetical scenarios suggest that physicians' risk literacy influences medical decisions; real-world correlations, however, are lacking. We sought to determine the association between physicians' risk literacy and their real-world prescriptions of potentially hazardous drugs, accounting for conflicts of interest and perceptions of benefit-harm ratios in low-value prescribing scenarios. SETTING AND SAMPLE: Cross-sectional study-conducted online between June and October 2023 via field panels of Sermo (Hamburg, Germany)-with a convenience sample of 304 English general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: GPs' survey responses on their treatment-related risk literacy, conflicts of interest and perceptions of the benefit-harm ratio in low-value prescribing scenarios were matched to their UK National Health Service records of prescribing volumes for antibiotics, opioids, gabapentin and benzodiazepines and analysed for differences. RESULTS: 204 GPs (67.1%) worked in practices with ≥6 practising GPs and 226 (76.0%) reported 10-39 years of experience. Compared with GPs demonstrating low risk literacy, GPs with high literacy prescribed fewer opioids (mean (M): 60.60 vs 43.88 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.016), less gabapentin (M: 23.84 vs 18.34 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.023), and fewer benzodiazepines (M: 17.23 vs 13.58 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.037), but comparable volumes of antibiotics (M: 48.84 vs 40.61 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.076). High-risk literacy was associated with lower conflicts of interest (ϕ = 0.12, p=0.031) and higher perception of harms outweighing benefits in low-value prescribing scenarios (p=0.007). Conflicts of interest and benefit-harm perceptions were not independently associated with prescribing behaviour (all ps >0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The observed association between GPs with higher risk literacy and the prescription of fewer hazardous drugs suggests the importance of risk literacy in enhancing patient safety and quality of care.

Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Unlike reduced mortality rates, improved survival rates and increased early detection do not prove that cancer screening tests save lives. Nevertheless, these 2 statistics are often used to promote screening. OBJECTIVE: To learn whether primary care physicians understand which statistics provide evidence about whether screening saves lives. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomized trial (randomization controlled for order effect only), conducted by Internet survey. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00981019) SETTING: National sample of U.S. primary care physicians from a research panel maintained by Harris Interactive (79% cooperation rate). PARTICIPANTS: 297 physicians who practiced both inpatient and outpatient medicine were surveyed in 2010, and 115 physicians who practiced exclusively outpatient medicine were surveyed in 2011. INTERVENTION: Physicians received scenarios about the effect of 2 hypothetical screening tests: The effect was described as improved 5-year survival and increased early detection in one scenario and as decreased cancer mortality and increased incidence in the other. MEASUREMENTS: Physicians' recommendation of screening and perception of its benefit in the scenarios and general knowledge of screening statistics. RESULTS: Primary care physicians were more enthusiastic about the screening test supported by irrelevant evidence (5-year survival increased from 68% to 99%) than about the test supported by relevant evidence (cancer mortality reduced from 2 to 1.6 in 1000 persons). When presented with irrelevant evidence, 69% of physicians recommended the test, compared with 23% when presented with relevant evidence (P < 0.001). When asked general knowledge questions about screening statistics, many physicians did not distinguish between irrelevant and relevant screening evidence; 76% versus 81%, respectively, stated that each of these statistics proves that screening saves lives (P = 0.39). About one half (47%) of the physicians incorrectly said that finding more cases of cancer in screened as opposed to unscreened populations "proves that screening saves lives." LIMITATION: Physicians' recommendations for screening were based on hypothetical scenarios, not actual practice. CONCLUSION: Most primary care physicians mistakenly interpreted improved survival and increased detection with screening as evidence that screening saves lives. Few correctly recognized that only reduced mortality in a randomized trial constitutes evidence of the benefit of screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Max Planck Institute for Human Development.

[Cancer screening and risk communication]. / Krebsfrüherkennung und Risikokommunikation.

In most psychological and medical research, patients are assumed to have difficulties with health statistics but clinicians not. However, studies indicate that most doctors have problems in understanding health statistics, including those of their own speciality. For example, only two out of 20 urologists knew the information relevant for a patient to make an informed decision about whether to take PSA screening for prostate cancer, just 14 out of 65 physicians in internal medicine understood that 5-year survival rates do not tell anything about screening's benefit, and merely 34 out of 160 gynecologists were able to interpret the meaning of a positive test result. This statistical illiteracy has a direct effect on patients understanding and interpretation of medical issues. Not rarely their own limited health literacy and their doctors' misinformation make them suffer through a time of emotional distress and unnecessary anxiety. The main reasons for doctors' statistical illiteracy are medical schools that ignore the importance of teaching risk communication. With little effort doctors could taught the simple techniques of risk communication, which would make most of their statistical confusion disappear.

The impact of nontransparent health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic on vaccine-hesitant people's perception of vaccines.

Background: Although transparency is crucial for building public trust, public health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic was often nontransparent. Methods: In a cross-sectional online study with COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant German residents (N = 763), we explored the impact of COVID-19 public health communication on the attitudes of vaccine-hesitant individuals toward vaccines as well as their perceptions of incomprehensible and incomplete information. We also investigated whether specific formats of public health messaging were perceived as more trustworthy. Results: Of the 763 participants, 90 (11.8%) said they had become more open-minded toward vaccines in general, 408 (53.5%) reported no change, and 265 (34.7%) said they had become more skeptical as a result of public health communication on COVID-19 vaccines. These subgroups differed in how incomprehensible they found public health communication and whether they thought information had been missing. Participants' ranking of trustworthy public health messaging did not provide clear-cut results: the fully transparent message, which reported the benefit and harms in terms of absolute risk, and the nontransparent message, which reported only the benefit in terms of relative risk were both considered equally trustworthy (p = 0.848). Discussion: Increased skepticism about vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic may have partly been fueled by subpar public health communication. Given the importance of public trust for coping with future health crises, public health communicators should ensure that their messaging is clear and transparent.

Vaccination Intention Following Receipt of Vaccine Information Through Interactive Simulation vs Text Among COVID-19 Vaccine-Hesitant Adults During the Omicron Wave in Germany.

Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, vaccine-hesitant adults presented with an interactive risk ratio simulation were more likely to show positive change in COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment than those presented with a conventional text-based information format. These findings suggest that the interactive risk communication format can be an important tool in addressing vaccination hesitancy and fostering public trust. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study conducted online with 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant adult residents of Germany in April and May 2022, surveyed using a probability-based internet panel maintained by respondi, a research and analytics firm. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 presentations on the benefits and adverse events associated with vaccination. Exposure: Participants were randomized to a text-based description vs an interactive simulation presenting age-adjusted absolute risks of infection, hospitalization, ICU admission, and death after exposure to coronavirus in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals relative to the possible adverse effects as well as additional (population-level) benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Importance: Hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination is a major factor in stagnating uptake rates and in the risk of health care systems becoming overwhelmed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute change in respondents' COVID-19 vaccination intention category and benefit-to-harm assessment category. Objective: To compare an interactive risk ratio simulation (intervention) with a conventional text-based risk information format (control) and analyze change in participants' COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment. Results: Participants were 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant residents of Germany (660 women [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 43.6 [13.5] years). A total of 651 participants received a text-based description, and 604 participants received an interactive simulation. Relative to the text-based format, the simulation was associated with greater likelihood of positive change in vaccination intentions (19.5% vs 15.3%, respectively; absolute difference, 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07-1.96; P = .01) and benefit-to-harm assessments (32.6% vs 18.0%; absolute difference, 14.6%; aOR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.64-2.80; P < .001). Both formats were also associated with some negative change. However, the net advantage (positive - negative change) of the interactive simulation over the text-based format was 5.3 percentage points for vaccination intention (9.8% vs 4.5%) and 18.3 percentage points for benefit-to-harm assessment (25.3% vs 7.0%). Positive change in vaccination intention (but not in benefit-to-harm assessment) was associated with some demographic characteristics and attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination; negative changes were not.

Design and usability of heuristic-based deliberation tools for women facing amniocentesis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that in decision contexts characterized by uncertainty and time constraints (e.g. health-care decisions), fast and frugal decision-making strategies (heuristics) may perform better than complex rules of reasoning. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether it is possible to design deliberation components in decision support interventions using simple models (fast and frugal heuristics). DESIGN: The 'Take The Best' heuristic (i.e. selection of a 'most important reason') and 'The Tallying' integration algorithm (i.e. unitary weighing of pros and cons) were used to develop two deliberation components embedded in a Web-based decision support intervention for women facing amniocentesis testing. Ten researchers (recruited from 15), nine health-care providers (recruited from 28) and ten pregnant women (recruited from 14) who had recently been offered amniocentesis testing appraised evolving versions of 'your most important reason' (Take The Best) and 'weighing it up' (Tallying). RESULTS: Most researchers found the tools useful in facilitating decision making although emphasized the need for simple instructions and clear layouts. Health-care providers however expressed concerns regarding the usability and clarity of the tools. By contrast, 7 out of 10 pregnant women found the tools useful in weighing up the pros and cons of each option, helpful in structuring and clarifying their thoughts and visualizing their decision efforts. Several pregnant women felt that 'weighing it up' and 'your most important reason' were not appropriate when facing such a difficult and emotional decision. CONCLUSION: Theoretical approaches based on fast and frugal heuristics can be used to develop deliberation tools that provide helpful support to patients facing real-world decisions about amniocentesis.

Forecasting Postoperative Delirium in Older Adult Patients with Fast-and-Frugal Decision Trees.

Postoperative delirium (POD) is associated with increased complication and mortality rates, particularly among older adult patients. However, guideline recommendations for POD detection and management are poorly implemented. Fast-and-frugal trees (FFTrees), which are simple prediction algorithms, may be useful in this context. We compared the capacity of simple FFTrees with two more complex models-namely, unconstrained classification trees (UDTs) and logistic regression (LogReg)-for the prediction of POD among older surgical patients in the perioperative setting. Models were trained and tested on the European BioCog project clinical dataset. Based on the entire dataset, two different FFTrees were developed for the pre-operative and postoperative settings. Within the pre-operative setting, FFTrees outperformed the more complex UDT algorithm with respect to predictive balanced accuracy, nearing the prediction level of the logistic regression. Within the postoperative setting, FFTrees outperformed both complex models. Applying the best-performing algorithms to the full datasets, we proposed an FFTree using four cues (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), site of surgery, physical status and frailty status) for the pre-operative setting and an FFTree containing only three cues (duration of anesthesia, age and CCI) for the postoperative setting. Given that both FFTrees contained considerably fewer criteria, which can be easily memorized and applied by health professionals in daily routine, FFTrees could help identify patients requiring intensified POD screening.

The role of simulated-experience and descriptive formats on perceiving risks of strong opioids: A randomized controlled trial with chronic noncancer pain patients.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid prescription rates worldwide suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Findings from cognitive science show that risk perceptions can differ systematically depending on whether people learn about risks by description or experience. We investigated the effects of descriptive and simulated experience risk formats on patients' risk perceptions and behavior regarding long-term strong opioid use. METHODS: 300 German patients with chronic noncancer pain were randomly assigned in an exploratory randomized controlled trial to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated experience format (interactive simulation). Primary endpoints were subjective and objective risk perceptions and intended intake behavior. RESULTS: Both formats significantly improved patients' objective risk perception; patients who saw the fact box estimated some outcomes more accurately (p = .031). Formats were equally effective in improving patients' subjective risk perception in terms of opioids' harms; however, patients receiving the simulation showed a greater reduction and termination of their opioid intake (p = .030) and a higher uptake of alternative therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Descriptive and simulated experience risk formats improve risk perceptions and behavior regarding potent but highly risky drugs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To eliminate risky behavior, simulated experience formats may be superior to descriptive formats.

Text-Based vs. Graphical Information Formats in Sepsis Prevention and Early Detection: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Informed Choice.

Sepsis is associated with 11 million global deaths annually. Although serious consequences of sepsis can generally be avoided with prevention and early detection, research has not yet addressed the efficacy of evidence-based health information formats for different risk groups. This study examines whether two evidence-based health information formats­text based and graphical­differ in how well they foster informed choice and risk and health literacy and in how well they support different sepsis risk groups. Based on a systematic literature review, two one-page educative formats on sepsis prevention and early detection were designed­one text based and one graphical. A sample of 500 German participants was randomly shown one of the two formats; they were then assessed on whether they made informed choices and on their risk and health literacy. For both formats, >70% of participants made informed choices for sepsis prevention and >75% for early detection. Compared with the graphical format, the text-based format was associated with higher degrees of informed choice (p = 0.012, OR = 1.818) and risk and health literacy (p = 0.032, OR = 1.710). Both formats can foster informed choices and risk and health literacy on sepsis prevention and early detection, but the text-based format appears to be more effective.

Self-Reported Practices and Emotions in Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of German Physicians.

Background: The pressure on physicians when a patient seeks pain relief and their own desire to be self-effective may lead to the prescription of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). This study, via physician self-reporting, aims to identify and measure (i) physician adherence to national opioid prescribing guidelines and (ii) physician emotions when a patient seeks a dosage increase of the opioid. Methods: Within a cross-sectional survey­conducted as part of a randomized controlled online intervention trial (ERONA)­600 German physicians were queried on their opioid prescribing behavior (choice and formulation of opioid, indications) for CNCP patients and their emotions to a case vignette describing a patient seeking an opioid dosage increase without signs of objective deterioration. Results: The prescription of strong opioids in this study was not always in accordance with current guidelines. When presented with a scenario in which a patient sought to have their opioid dose increased, some physicians reported negative feelings, such as either pressure (25%), helplessness (25%), anger (23%) or a combination. The risk of non-guideline-compliant prescribing behavior using the example of ultrafast-acting fentanyl for CNCP was increased when negative emotions were present (OR: 1.7; 95%-CI: 1.2−2.6; p = 0.007) or when sublingual buprenorphine was prescribed (OR: 15.4; 95%-CI: 10.1−23.3; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Physicians' emotional self-awareness represents the first step to identify such direct reactions to patient requests and to ensure a responsible, guideline-based opioid prescription approach for the long-term well-being of the patient.

Efficacy and safety of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain and chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT: In recent years, long-term prescribing and use of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) has increased in high-income countries. Yet existing uncertainties, controversies, and differing recommendations make the rationale for prolonged opioid use in CNCP unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of strong opioids with placebo or nonopioid therapy in CNCP, with a special focus on chronic low back pain (CLBP). Systematic literature searches were performed in 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) in July 2019 and updated by regular alerts until December 2020. We included 16 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials for CLBP and 5 studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized studies) of opioids vs nonopioids for CNCP in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses were performed for efficacy, safety, and tolerability outcomes and subgroup analyses for treatment duration, study design, and opioid experience status. Very low to low certainty findings suggest that 4 to 15 weeks (short or intermediate term) opioid therapy in CLBP (compared with placebo) may cause clinically relevant reductions in pain but also more gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events, with likely no effect on disability. By contrast, long-term opioid therapy (≥6 months) in CNCP may not be superior to nonopioids in improving pain or disability or pain-related function but seems to be associated with more adverse events, opioid abuse or dependence, and possibly an increase in all-cause mortality. Our findings also underline the importance and need for well-designed trials assessing long-term efficacy and safety of opioids for CNCP and CLBP.

Patients' self-reported physical and psychological effects of opioid use in chronic noncancer pain-A retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Strong opioids can have unintended effects. Clinical studies of strong opioids mainly report physical side effects, psychiatric or opioid use disorders. To date, too little attention has been paid to the psychological effects of opioids to treat patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). This study aims to identify and measure (i) the nature and frequency of physical and psychological effects and (ii) the degree of physician counseling of patients with CNCP taking strong opioids. METHODS: Within a cross-sectional survey-conducted as part of a randomised controlled online intervention trial (ERONA [Experiencing the risk of overusing opioids among patients with chronic non-cancer pain in ambulatory care])-300 German CNCP patients were surveyed via patient-reported outcome measures regarding on both the side effects from their use of strong opioids as well as their counselling experience. RESULTS: Among the patients' reported effects, the psychological outcomes of the opioids in CNCP were: feeling relaxed (84%), fatigue (76%), dizziness (57%), listlessness (37%), difficulty with mental activities (23%), dulled emotions (17%) and poor memory (17%). Ninety-two per cent of the patients reported having received information about opioid effects, and 46% had discussed cessation of the opioid medication with their physicians before commencing the prescription. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the well-known physical side effects, patients with CNCP taking strong opioids experience significant psychological effects. In view of these effects, discontinuation of opioid therapy should be discussed early to ensure their benefits do not outweigh their harm. SIGNIFICANCE: In this study, patients with non-cancer pain notice that opioids they have taken do not only cause physical side effects but also may have an impact on their psyche and their emotions and, thus, may also affect quality of life substantially. Clinical trial number: DRKS00020358.

How do family physicians communicate about cardiovascular risk? Frequencies and determinants of different communication formats.

BACKGROUND: Patients understand information about risk better if it is communicated in numerical or visual formats (e.g. graphs) compared to verbal qualifiers only. How frequently different communication formats are used in clinical primary care settings is unknown. METHODS: We collected socioeconomic and patient understanding data using questionnaires and audio-recorded consultations about cardiovascular disease risk. The frequencies of the communication formats were calculated and multivariate regression analysis of associations between communication formats, patient and general practitioner characteristics, and patient subjective understanding was performed. RESULTS: In 73% of 70 consultations, verbal qualifiers were used exclusively to communicate cardiovascular risk, compared to numerical (11%) and visual (16%) formats. Female GPs and female patient's gender were significantly associated with a higher use of verbal formats compared to visual formats (p=0.001 and p=0.039, respectively). Patient subjective understanding was significantly higher in visual counseling compared to verbal counseling (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Verbal qualifiers are the most often used communication format, though recommendations favor numerical and visual formats, with visual formats resulting in better understanding than others. Also, gender is associated with the choice of communication format. Barriers against numerical and visual communication formats among GPs and patients should be studied, including gender aspects. Adequate risk communication should be integrated into physicians' education.

Do children have Bayesian intuitions?

Can children solve Bayesian problems, given that these pose great difficulties even for most adults? We present an ecological framework in which Bayesian intuitions emerge from a match between children's numerical competencies and external representations of numerosity. Bayesian intuition is defined here as the ability to determine the exact Bayesian posterior probability by minds untutored in probability theory or in Bayes' rule. As we show, Bayesian intuitions do not require processing of probabilities or Arabic numbers, but basically the ability to count tokens in icon arrays and to understand what to count. A series of experiments demonstrates for the first time that icon arrays elicited Bayesian intuitions in children as young as second-graders for 22% to 32% of all problems; fourth-graders achieved 50% to 60%. Most surprisingly, icon arrays elicited Bayesian intuitions in children with dyscalculia, a specific learning disorder that has been attributed to genetic causes. These children could solve an impressive 50% of Bayesian problems, a level similar to that of children without dyscalculia. By seventh grade, children solved about two thirds of Bayesian problems with natural frequencies alone, without the additional help of icon arrays. We identify four non-Bayesian rules. On the basis of these results, we propose a common solution for the phylogenetic, the ontogenetic, and the 1970s puzzles in the Bayesian literature and argue for a revision of how to teach statistical thinking. In accordance with recent work on infants' numerical abilities, these findings indicate that children have more numerical ability than previously assumed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).