PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jørgen Nexøe

Publications and source records attributed to Jørgen Nexøe.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Willingness-to-pay for a population program aimed at reducing dietary salt in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: High intake of salt increases blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular disease. Population programs aimed at reducing dietary salt may be cost-effective, but little is known about people's valuation of such programs. METHODS: A random sample (n = 924) of Danish people aged 20-74 was interviewed in-person in year 2000. They were asked how much they would be willing to contribute in additional tax for a population program that would half the intake of salt. The respondents were randomized to presentation of effectiveness format (number-needed-to-treat (NNT), relative risk reduction (RRR), avoided cases of heart attack or increase in longevity). RESULTS: In total, 57% were unwilling to contribute to the program (63%, 51%, 51% and 63% in the NNT-, RRR-, case- and longevity-groups, respectively). The mean willingness-to-pay among the remaining 43% was $30 per person per month. While in Denmark, the annual net program cost would be $148 millions in the most unfavorable scenario, the aggregate willingness-to-pay was $468 millions. CONCLUSIONS: A public health program may be worthwhile even though only a minority of the population is willing to contribute towards it. People's valuation is moderately sensitive to format of the program information.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

How do individuals apply risk information when choosing among health care interventions?

A sample of 3,201 Danes was subjected to personal interviews in which they were asked to state their preferences for risk-reducing health care interventions based on information on absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR). The aim of the study was to measure the relative weighting of different types of risk information under various circumstances. The effect of presenting questions, and of explicitly formulating RRR, was analyzed. A preference for increases in RRR was demonstrated. There was a stronger inclination to choose the intervention that offered the highest RRR if RRR was explicitly stated. Individuals with more than 10 years of schooling also demonstrated a preference for increased ARR, but only when facing individually framed choices. In a social choice context, preferences for RRR remained intact, but the magnitude of ARR had no impact on choices. Results imply that social framing may induce a propensity to prefer interventions that target high-risk populations. Those respondents who had received < or = 10 years of schooling demonstrated preferences for RRR but not ARR, and no impact of social framing was observed.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

[General practitioners' perception of disease risks and benefit of prevention].

INTRODUCTION: Uncertainty and risk are central issues in relation to health and health care services. Healthy individuals do not necessarily fall ill, despite the presence of risk factors. Doctors, health service administrators, and patients are more inclined to choose interventions against risk factors, when information about the effects is presented in terms of relative risk reductions rather than absolute risk reductions. The aim of the study was to gain better insight into how general practitioners (GPs) perceive risk of disease, and whether this perception depends on the risk reduction being presented in absolute or relative terms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Questionnaires with clinical episodes were sent to 1500 Danish GPs. The GPs were randomised into four groups of 375, all of whom received the same case history with information about risk reduction achieved through medical treatment phrased in terms of either relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, or all of the aforementioned terms of risk reduction. The GPs were asked whether they would recommend medical treatment as primary prevention, knowing the case history and expected risk reduction. RESULTS: The GPs' attitude towards recommending medical treatment depended on the phrasing of risk reductions. Of the doctors who received all information on risk reductions, 72% would definitely or probably recommend medication, whereas 91% would recommend medication if only information about relative risk reduction was given, and 63% would recommend medication if information was given in terms of absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat. DISCUSSION: To advise patients rationally, knowledge of the patients' preferences, as well as consideration of all available measures of risk reductions, is needed.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2002

Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial.

Graphic representation was used to explore to what extent the number needed to treat (NNT) conveys the appropriate notion of benefit for the individual patient in interventions aimed at delaying adverse events. A sample of the Danish population (n = 675) was interviewed face to face, and asked whether they would consent to a hypothetical drug that reduces the risk of heart attack. The benefit of the drug was expressed in terms of NNT and was randomly set at 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 400. NNT does not convey information on the proportion of patients being helped by an intervention or the size of the delay of the adverse event intended to be prevented. The proportion of people consenting to the hypothetical drug was about 80%, irrespective of NNT, and some of those who rejected the drug misinterpreted the meaning of NNT. Lay people may have difficulties in understanding the meaning of NNT, and clinicians may do well to use the NNT with caution until more is known about how patients comprehend it.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Perception of risk information. Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to gain better insight into how general practitioners (GPs) perceive risk reduction and the way this perception may be influenced by healthcare environment. DESIGN: Questionnaires with clinical episodes were sent to Danish and Polish GPs, who were randomised into four groups, each receiving the same case story with differently phrased information about risk reduction achieved through medical treatment. The GPs were asked whether they would recommend medical treatment, knowing the case story and expected risk reduction. SUBJECTS: Danish and Polish GPs. RESULTS: A greater proportion of Polish GPs than Danish GPs would definitely or probably recommend treatment (93% versus 72%; p < 0.001). Both groups of doctors were more inclined to recommend treatment when the achievable benefits were presented in terms of relative risk reduction rather than absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat. CONCLUSION: Neither information on number needed to treat nor relative risk reduction alone provides doctors with all the information they need to recommend treatment or prevention to their patients. The present study showed that the professional handling of risk information is affected by differences produced by healthcare cultures.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Danish GPs' perception of disease risk and benefit of prevention.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty and risk are central issues in relation to health and health care services. Healthy individuals do not necessarily fall ill, despite the presence of risk factors. It has been documented that doctors, health service administrators and patients are more inclined to choose interventions against risk factors when information about the effects is presented in terms of relative risk reductions rather than absolute risk reductions. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to gain better insight into how GPs perceive risk of disease, and how this perception is influenced by the way the risk is presented, e.g. whether changes in risk are presented in absolute or relative terms. METHODS: Questionnaires with clinical episodes were sent to 1500 Danish GPs. The GPs were randomized into four groups of 375, who all received the same case story with information about risk reduction achieved through medical treatment phrased in terms of either relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat or all of the aforementioned terms of risk reduction. The GPs were asked whether they would recommend medical treatment as primary prevention, knowing the case story and expected risk reduction. RESULTS: The GPs' attitude towards recommending medical treatment was dependent on the phrasing of risk reductions. Seventy-two per cent of doctors who received all information on risk reductions would definitely or probably recommend medication, while 91% would recommend medication if information only about relative risk reduction was given, and 63% would recommend medication if information was given in terms of absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat. CONCLUSION: In order to advise patients in a rational way, in addition to knowledge of the patients' preferences, doctors need to take into account all available measures of risk reductions.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effects of baseline risk information on social and individual choices.

This article analyzes preferences for risk reductions in the context of individual and societal decision making. The effect of information on baseline risk is analyzed in both contexts. The results indicate that if individuals are to imagine that they suffer from 1 low-risk and 1 high-risk ailment, and are offered a specified identical absolute risk reduction, a majority will ceteris paribus opt for treatment of the low-risk ailment. A different preference structure is elicited when priority questions are framed as social choices. Here, a majority will prefer to treat the high-risk group of patients. The preference reversal demonstrates the extent to which baseline risk information can influence preferences in different choice settings. It is argued that presentation of baseline risk information may induce framing effects that lead to nonoptimal resource allocations. A solution to this problem may be to not present group-specific baseline risk information when eliciting preferences.

Adult↗