about
Features of Computer-Based Decision Aids: Systematic Review, Thematic Synthesis, and Meta-AnalysesDo invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screeningPeople's Understanding of Verbal Risk Descriptors in Patient Information Leaflets: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of 18- to 65-Year-Olds in EnglandDefogging Climate Change Communication: How Cognitive Research Can Promote Effective Climate CommunicationBetter decision making in preventive health screening: Balancing benefits and harms.Prendre de meilleures décisions en matière de dépistage préventif: Équilibrer bienfaits et préjudices.An Evidence-Based Medicine Approach to Antihyperglycemic Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus to Overcome Overtreatment.Communicating cancer treatment information using the Web: utilizing the patient's perspective in website developmentDistress and patient-centered communication among veterans with incidental (not screen-detected) pulmonary nodules. A cohort study.Addressing Parental Vaccine Concerns: Engagement, Balance, and Timing.Benefit-harm analysis and charts for individualized and preference-sensitive prevention: example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancerThe Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?Defining reasonable patient standard and preference for shared decision making among patients undergoing anaesthesia in Singapore.Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countriesClinician-patient risk discussion for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention: importance to implementation of the 2013 ACC/AHA GuidelinesThe response to receiving phenotypic and genetic coronary heart disease risk scores and lifestyle advice - a qualitative study.Development of a prediction model and estimation of cumulative risk for upper aerodigestive tract cancer on the basis of the aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 genotype and alcohol consumption in a Japanese population.Effects of numerical information on intention to participate in cervical screening among women offered HPV vaccination: a randomised study.Randomised trial assessing the impact of framing of fracture risk and osteoporosis treatment benefits in patients undergoing bone densitometry.Negotiating Tensions Between Theory and Design in the Development of Mailings for People Recovering From Acute Coronary Syndrome.Molecular epidemiology, and possible real-world applications in breast cancer.Patient experience of NHS health checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.Risk accuracy of type 2 diabetes in middle aged adults: Associations with sociodemographic, clinical, psychological and behavioural factors.How does the side-effect information in patient information leaflets influence peoples' side-effect expectations? A cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England.Academic Responses to Fukushima Disaster.What to say and how to say it: effective communication for cardiovascular disease prevention.Family History and Probability of Prostate Cancer, Differentiated by Risk Category: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.The more from East-Asian, the better: risk prediction of colorectal cancer risk by GWAS-identified SNPs among Japanese.Personalized risk communication for personalized risk assessment: Real world assessment of knowledge and motivation for six mortality risk measures from an online life expectancy calculator.Predicting Outcomes on the Liver Transplant Waiting List in the United States: Accounting for Large Regional Variation in Organ Availability and Priority Allocation Points.Characterizing and Communicating Risk with Exposure Reconstruction and Bayesian Analysis: Historical Locomotive Maintenance/Repair Associated with Asbestos Woven Tape Pipe Lagging.Attitudes toward disclosure of medication side effects: a nationwide survey of Korean patients, caregivers, and oncologists.Prise de décision partagée en soins de santé préventifs: Ce que c’est; ce que ce n’est pas.Shared decision making in preventive health care: What it is; what it is not.Repeated testing improves achievement in a blended learning approach for risk competence training of medical students: results of a randomized controlled trial.Evaluating Risk Communication After the Fukushima Disaster Based on Nudge Theory.How Patients View Lung Cancer Screening. The Role of Uncertainty in Medical Decision Making.Who and when should we screen for prostate cancer? Interviews with key opinion leaders.A Simple Approach to Shared Decision Making in Cancer Screening.Quantitative Information on Oncology Prescription Drug Websites.
P2860
Q26774311-C6958E63-808A-4C19-AA16-2D57A3C4D50AQ27325711-5FD90387-6432-4784-8ED3-3439E89227DFQ30148656-350ADEEB-07DE-4343-889B-CE615406475FQ31130896-BDAEB6A3-3892-4A5E-88AC-9F5423834714Q33897609-C2220F15-762A-414A-95A6-27968E87287BQ33897614-0BFF9067-F5F1-4C70-83A9-437817B72713Q34548875-7C8C2FE3-366A-4474-8C4C-3BEF867C470AQ34740086-3244FF59-9D4B-4998-B09F-3BB73F7EFADAQ35127892-1EE57DA5-8771-4180-A52B-3C0F167EFBEBQ35739951-F5C6A778-F506-4505-BF79-25719F7F482BQ35794066-8B42D55A-73CC-4311-80CB-5D5E6DBFC799Q36207204-A4A8614D-0010-4299-ABC1-132215987948Q36266771-2B0889F5-814E-4FBB-9A2A-D923BDB0C762Q36415022-CDE75CB0-E5A6-4D4F-9EC3-5052BC71C480Q36599407-063BCDDE-5248-4017-BBC9-D057B316C3A0Q37470501-346417B6-CAF2-4614-A9D3-4F7589482C2EQ37481152-C39E46CF-EC30-4C04-9493-DBF06521DE78Q37566188-FFF1950C-8F70-4D5D-9773-FF0DB76EC8A7Q37639937-576DFC73-C82F-443E-8617-2BBD953585ACQ37703391-88191513-656E-4365-838B-02E3378514E0Q38415320-6655C9A1-1F53-4A17-A6F0-39676AE92CAAQ38628218-C6BD11A4-B75B-4611-9D8F-EA5BDA9038AAQ38652842-4F4D11F0-99CE-46F7-9215-9ABD6FE866FFQ38724175-4038C689-3CB9-4250-96B0-345FD6446901Q38741410-46ABF520-E125-48DD-A472-BDEFE1B0D4BAQ38900547-737BE897-D6F3-41FE-9F7B-B8B6217AA1DFQ39613606-58377C03-3716-43F7-A697-E59A5E1207AAQ40066914-5D2530A2-CE0A-4CE5-9207-802CDA47319EQ40389284-2E27592E-C285-49D3-878A-4237871F5ADDQ40636558-536375DC-A81F-46B4-AD24-55751122F4AFQ40644677-A05F0917-6D5E-459C-B602-C914E209D778Q40943526-FD2AFB19-3B96-4A83-947D-2EA9C0C577CCQ41147889-F11B3F5E-8BC3-484C-8E24-36D0C30B4D50Q41148461-51019AD8-B115-499A-A3AA-8F03998AC1B2Q41670377-8B47A61F-595A-49CC-95B5-E4A6F23A6835Q41932973-B75A3FDA-3DDB-41A5-A88B-2A971855BA8AQ42768769-C64BADCC-AC0A-45D4-9994-C59CF0193594Q43152601-EFF7535C-B8D7-4242-875C-913913CCE57CQ43565157-3D3B09BC-AAB8-4471-8827-6FAF4D9AE372Q44338859-80F27CFD-0C08-4276-8289-955E86FA1DFD
P2860
description
2014 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2014年の論文
@ja
2014年学术文章
@wuu
2014年学术文章
@zh-cn
2014年学术文章
@zh-hans
2014年学术文章
@zh-my
2014年学术文章
@zh-sg
2014年學術文章
@yue
2014年學術文章
@zh
2014年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review.
@en
type
label
Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review.
@en
prefLabel
Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review.
@en
P2093
P356
P1476
Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review
@en
P2093
Avishek Nagi
Connie Schardt
Craig A Umscheid
Daniella A Zipkin
David A Feldstein
Deborah Korenstein
Elizabeth Allen
Nancy L Keating
Rebecca Beyth
P304
P356
10.7326/M14-0295
P407
P577
2014-08-01T00:00:00Z