Patient Preference and Adherence (May 2018)
Feasibility of visual aids for risk evaluation by hospitalized patients with coronary artery disease: results from face-to-face interviews
Abstract
Carlos Alberto da Silva Magliano,1 Andrea Liborio Monteiro,2 Bernardo Rangel Tura,1 Claudia Silvia Rocha Oliveira,1 Amanda Rebeca de Oliveira Rebelo,1 Claudia Cristina de Aguiar Pereira3 1NATS, Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia, INC, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA; 3Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, ENSP, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Purpose: Communicating information about risk and probability to patients is considered a difficult task. In this study, we aim to evaluate the use of visual aids representing perioperative mortality and long-term survival in the communication process for patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease at the National Institute of Cardiology, a Brazilian public hospital specializing in cardiology. Patients and methods: One-on-one interviews were conducted between August 1 and November 20, 2017. Patients were asked to imagine that their doctor was seeking their input in the decision regarding which treatment represented the best option for them. Patients were required to choose between alternatives by considering only the different benefits and risks shown in each scenario, described as the proportion of patients who had died during the perioperative period and within 5 years. Each participant evaluated the same eight scenarios. We evaluated their answers in a qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results: The main findings were that all patients verbally expressed concern about perioperative mortality and that 25% did not express concern about long-term mortality. Twelve percent considered the probabilities irrelevant on the grounds that their prognosis would depend on “God’s will.” Ten percent of the patients disregarded the reported likelihood of perioperative mortality, deciding to focus solely on the “chance of being cured.” In the quantitative analysis, the vast majority of respondents chose the “correct” alternatives, meaning that they made consistent and rational choices. Conclusion: The use of visual aids to present risk attributes appeared feasible in our sample. The impact of heuristics and religious beliefs on shared health decision making needs to be explored better in future studies. Keywords: patients’ preferences, coronary revascularization, angina, cardiology, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention
