Table 1

Summary of demographics of English general practitioners assessed in the study

TotalLower risk literacyHigher risk literacyP value*
Sample size (%)304116 (38.2)188 (61.8)
Years of experience, n (%)†0.386
 < 10 years63 (20.7)23 (19.8)40 (21.3)
 10–19 years116 (38.2)42 (36.2)74 (39.4)
 20–29 years75 (24.7)26 (22.4)49 (26.1)
 30–39 years40 (13.2)19 (16.3)21 (11.2)
 ≥ 40 years10 (3.3)6 (5.2)4 (2.1)
Size of practice, n (%)†0.093
 1 practitioner3 (1.0)2 (1.7)1 (0.5)
 2–3 practitioners17 (5.6)7 (6.0)10 (5.3)
 4–5 practitioners80 (26.3)21 (18.1)59 (31.4)
 6–10 practitioners119 (39.1)53 (45.7)66 (35.1)
 > 10 practitioners85 (28.0)33 (28.4)52 (27.7)
Patient list size, M (SD)0.320
13 215 (9972)12 491 (8827)13 663 (10 615)
Conflicts of interests, n (%)†0.031
 Low249 (81.9)88 (75.9)161 (85.6)
 High55 (18.1)28 (24.1)27 (14.4)
Perception of benefit–harm ratio across all scenarios, n (%)†0.007
 More benefits than harms125 (41.1)59 (50.9)66 (35.1)
 More harms than benefit179 (58.9)57 (49.1)122 (64.9)
  • 2 tests for differences between risk literacy groups. P values are two-sided, with satistical significance set at P < 0.05.

  • †Percentages are rounded and may not add up to 100.