Communicating risks at the population level: application of population impact numbers
- 13 November 2003
- Vol. 327 (7424) , 1162-1165
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7424.1162
Abstract
Communicating population risk to policy makers and the public is important, but traditional epidemiological measures of risk are difficult to understand. PIN-ER- t , a measure of the population impact of risk factors, is simpler to understand and hence may be useful Communicating levels of health related risks to decision makers and the public is increasingly important. Clinical and public health professionals are becoming familiar with best practice in communicating risk to individual patients or members of the public.1 However, communicating risk to those who determine health policy has been less well studied. Although we do not have direct evidence of inappropriate health policy decisions being made, a questionnaire survey found health service managers seem to be inappropriately influenced by presentations of risk and benefit in relative rather than absolute terms.2 For understanding disease causation and to describe the impact of risk factors for disease, the traditional epidemiological measures are absolute and relative risk. However, these do not give a clear indication of the impact of a risk factor at population level, since they do not take into account the prevalence of the risk factor in a population. Epidemiological measures that do take this into account, such as population attributable risk (PAR), are difficult to conceptualise and remember and may be incomprehensible to non-epidemiologists. (In addition, different terms are used for PAR,3 including population attributable fraction (PAF)4 and population attributable risk proportion (PARP),5 which can be confusing for expert and non-expert audiences alike.6) For a healthcare organisation to allocate resources effectively and develop services according to its health priorities, there may be value in producing and communicating numbers that show the impact of risk factors for disease in the local population in ways that can be easily calculated and understood. We have therefore …Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effectiveness and costs of interventions to lower systolic blood pressure and cholesterol: a global and regional analysis on reduction of cardiovascular-disease riskThe Lancet, 2003
- Measuring the accumulated hazards of smoking: global and regional estimates for 2000Tobacco Control, 2003
- Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful?: Theoretical considerations and a randomized trialJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2002
- Impact numbers: measures of risk factor impact on the whole population from case-control and cohort studiesJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2002
- A population perspective to evidence based medicine: "evidence for population health"Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2002
- Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: indirect estimation from national vital statisticsThe Lancet, 1992
- Serum cholesterol concentration and coronary heart disease in population with low cholesterol concentrations.BMJ, 1991
- Overall and coronary heart disease mortality rates in relation to major risk factors in 325,348 men screened for the MRFITAmerican Heart Journal, 1986
- Sick Individuals and Sick PopulationsInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1985
- A method for using epidemiologic data to estimate the potential impact of an intervention on the health status of a target populationJournal of Community Health, 1982