Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Health professionals'...
  3. Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study
Research

Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study

BMJ 2006; 333 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38884.663102.AE (Published 03 August 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;333:284

This article has a correction. Please see:

  1. Ros Bramwell (rosb{at}liv.ac.uk), senior lecturer1,
  2. Helen West, research student1,
  3. Peter Salmon, professor1
  1. 1 Division of Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB
  1. Correspondence to: R Bramwell
  • Accepted 25 May 2006

Abstract

Objective To investigate the accuracy of interpretation of probabilistic screening information by different stakeholder groups and whether presentation as frequencies improves accuracy.

Design Between participants experimental design; participants responded to screening information embedded in a scenario.

Setting Regional maternity service and national conferences and training days.

Participants 43 pregnant women attending their first antenatal appointment in a regional maternity service; 40 companions accompanying the women to their appointments; 42 midwives; 41 obstetricians. Participation rates were 56%, 48%, 89%, and 71% respectively.

Measures Participants estimated the probability that a positive screening test result meant that a baby actually had Down's syndrome on the basis of all the relevant information, which was presented in a scenario. They were randomly assigned to scenarios that presented the information in percentage (n = 86) or frequency (n = 83) format. They also gave basic demographic information and rated their confidence in their estimate.

Results Most responses (86%) were incorrect. Obstetricians gave significantly more correct answers (although still only 43%) than either midwives (0%) or pregnant women (9%). Overall, the proportion of correct answers was higher for presentation as frequencies (24%) than for presentation as percentages (6%), but further analysis showed that this difference occurred only in responses from obstetricians. Many health professionals were confident in their incorrect responses.

Conclusions Most stakeholders in pregnancy screening draw incorrect inferences from probabilistic information, and health professionals need to be aware of the difficulties that both they and their patients have with such information. Moreover, they should be aware that different people make different mistakes and that ways of conveying information that help some people will not help others.

Footnotes

  • Contributors RB had the original idea for this research, and all three authors contributed to the research design. HW collected the data. RB did the analysis and drafted the manuscript in collaboration with PS and HW. RB is the guarantor.

  • Funding Economic and Social Research Council, award reference RES-000-22-0352. The funders were not involved in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethical approval Liverpool (Adult) Research Ethics Committee 9/1/04, reference 02/05/063A.

View Full Text
Back to top