Covid-19 pandemic lessons: Uncritical communication of test results can induce more harm than benefit and raises questions on standardized quality criteria for communication and liability

Author:

Porzsolt Franz,Pfuhl GeritORCID,Kaplan Robert M,Eisemann Martin

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is characterized by both health and economic risks. A ‘safety loop’ model postulates risk-related decisions are not based on objective and measurable risks but on the subjective perception of those risks. We here illustrate a quantification of the difference between objective and subjective risks.MethodThe objective risks (or chances) can be obtained from traditional 2 × 2 tables by calculating the positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios. The subjective perception of objective risks is calculated from the same 2 × 2 tables by exchanging the X- and Y-axes. The traditional 2 × 2 table starts with the hypothesis, uses a test and a gold standard to confirm or exclude the investigated condition. The 2 × 2 table with inverted axes starts with the communication of a test result and presumes that the communication of bad news (whether right or false) will induce ‘perceived anxiety’ while good news will induce ‘perceived safety’. Two different functions (confirmation and exclusion) of both perceptions (perceived anxiety and safety) can be quantified with those calculations.ResultsThe analysis of six published tests and of one incompletely reported test on COVID-19 polymerase chain reactions (completed by four assumptions on high and low sensitivities and specificities) demonstrated that none of these tests induces ‘perceived safety’. Eight of the ten tests confirmed the induction of perceived anxiety with +LRs (range 3.1 – 5900). In two of these eight tests a -LR (0.25 and 0.004) excluded the induction of perceived safety.ConclusionsCommunication of test results caused perceived anxiety but not perceived safety in 80% of the investigated tests. Medical tests – whether right or false – generate strong psychological messages. In the case of COVID-19 tests may induce more perceived anxiety than safety.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Reference15 articles.

1. WHO. Situation reports who.int: WHO; 2020 [Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports.

2. A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1

3. Perceived efficacy of COVID-19 restrictions, reactions and their impact on mental health during the early phase of the outbreak in six countries;Royal Society Open Science,2020

4. Marais K , Dulac N , Leveson N. Beyond Normal Accidents and High Reliability Organizations: The Need for an Alternative Approach to Safety. in Complex Systems, ESD Symposium 2004.

5. The risks of information in health care: do we need a new decision aid?;Clinics (Sao Paulo),2013

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3