Communicating risk of asthma attacks to patients and the public

<bold>Background:</bold> Asthma attacks lead to morbidity and mortality but the risk is not always recognised. Effective risk communication is key. <bold>Aims:</bold> To evaluate different risk presentations for conveying the risk of asthma attacks and treatment benefit and how health literacy and numeracy impact effectiveness. <bold>Methods:</bold> Participants were shown 6 different presentations online in random order, each with a different risk value. Comprehension and satisfaction were assessed. Participants were then shown one risk value in 6 different ways (Fig. 1) and asked to choose the presentation conveying the highest risk and their preferred choice. Subjective numeracy and health literacy scales were completed. <fig><object-id>erj;64/suppl_68/PA2587/F1</object-id><object-id>F1</object-id><object-id>F1</object-id><graphic></graphic></fig> <italic>Fig. 1:Risk presentations</italic> <bold>Results:</bold> Ninety-one adults completed the survey. Most (80%) had high health literacy and moderate numeracy (mean±SD 3.8±0.6 out of 5). Comprehension was worst for OR with less than half (46±24%) interpreting risk correctly. Satisfaction (out of 5) was highest with IA (3.8±1.1) and lowest with OR (2.3±1.1). OR was perceived by 36% of resopndents as conveying the highest risk. IA was preferred by most (62%). Those with lower health literacy had worse comprehension (p<0.05) except for OR and thermometer presentations. Numeracy was correlated with comprehension for all (p<0.05) but AR and IA. <bold>Conclusions:</bold> Odds ratio was the most difficult to comprehend and least satisfying presentation. Most preferred IA. Health literacy and numeracy affect comprehension.