Abstract
Background The 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.
Method The 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.
Results The 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.
Conclusions Communication 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
not applicable
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a theoretical / opinion paper and no IRB was required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Franz Porzsolt, mindset{at}clinical-economics.com, Robert M Kaplan, bob.kaplan{at}stanford.edu
A few rounding errors in supplementary II fixed
Data Availability
Data has been reported in published articles or is included in the article as supplementary material
