She is also founder and current chair of the Migrant Health and Ethics Network (within the International Association of Bioethics) and a founding member of the Independent Resource Group for Global Health Justice. Professor Eckenwiler is a Fellow of the Hastings Center, and recently served as Vice President of the International Association of Bioethics. Her research collaborations are currently focused on the ethics of closing humanitarian projects the ethics of humanitarian accommodations and the integration of refugees and other migrants in destination countries. Her previous books include Long-term Care, Globalization and Justice (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012) and The Ethics of Bioethics: Mapping the Moral Landscape, co-edited with Felicia Cohn (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007). She is at work on a book entitled Placemaking for Health Justice, for Routledge, and lead editor for Forced Migration and Health Justice, for Oxford University Press. Her research centers broadly on vulnerability and structural health injustice, with special interests in migration, humanitarian health ethics, and placemaking.

Lisa Eckenwiler, Ph.D., is Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at George Mason University, where she teaches courses in bioethics and a range of topics in global health ethics. The more succinct percent format resulted in better comprehension: Comprehension was slightly better overall and notably better for absolute differences.Īttorney General Consumer and Prescriber Education grant program, the Robert Wood Johnson Pioneer Program, and the National Cancer Institute.Bioethics, health care ethics, public health ethics, feminist ethical and political theory Natural frequencies are not the best format for communicating the absolute benefits and harms of treatment. The largest format effect was seen for the 2 questions about absolute differences: the proportion correct in the natural frequency versus percent groups was 43% versus 72% (P < 0.001) and 73% versus 87% (P < 0.001).Įven when data were presented in the percent format, one third of participants failed the comprehension test. The proportion of participants who 'passed' the comprehension test (≥13 correct answers) was lowest in the natural and variable frequency groups and highest in the percent group (68% vs. The average number of comprehension questions answered correctly was lowest in the variable frequency group and highest in the percent group (13.1 vs.

Tables presenting absolute risks in 1 of 5 numeric formats: natural frequency (x in 1000), variable frequency (x in 100, x in 1000, or x in 10,000, as needed to keep the numerator >1), percent, percent plus natural frequency, or percent plus variable frequency.Ĭomprehension as assessed by 18 questions (primary outcome) and judgment of treatment benefit and harm.

adults randomly selected from a professional survey firm's research panel of about 30,000 households.Ģ944 adults aged 18 years or older (all with complete follow-up). Parallel-group randomized trial with central allocation and masking of investigators to group assignment, conducted through an Internet survey in September 2009.

To compare comprehension of treatment benefit and harm when absolute risks are presented as natural frequencies, percents, or both. Despite limited evidence, it is often asserted that natural frequencies (for example, 2 in 1000) are the best way to communicate absolute risks.

Lisa schwartz attorney