IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i3p2165-d1046389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy of Three Numerical Presentation Formats on Lay People’s Comprehension and Risk Perception of Fact Boxes—A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Author

Listed:
  • Pascal Aubertin

    (Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany)

  • Thomas Frese

    (Institute of General Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany)

  • Jürgen Kasper

    (Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, 0176 Oslo, Norway)

  • Wilfried Mau

    (Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany)

  • Gabriele Meyer

    (Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany)

  • Rafael Mikolajczyk

    (Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics and Informatics, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany)

  • Matthias Richter

    (Institute of Medical Sociology, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany)

  • Jan Schildmann

    (Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany)

  • Anke Steckelberg

    (Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany)

Abstract

(1) Background: Fact boxes present the benefits and harms of medical interventions in the form of tables. Some studies suggest that people with a lower level of education could profit more from graphic presentations. The objective of the study was to compare three different formats in fact boxes with regard to verbatim and gist knowledge in general and according to the educational background. (2) Methods: In May 2020, recruitment started for this randomized controlled trial. Participants were given one out of three presentation formats: natural frequencies, percentages, and graphic. We used Limesurvey ® to assess comprehension/risk perception as the primary outcome. The Kruskal–Wallis test and the Mann–Whitney U test were used in addition to descriptive analyses. (3) Results: A total of 227 people took part in the study. Results of the groups were nearly identical in relation to the primary outcome verbatim knowledge, likewise in gist knowledge. However, participants with lower educational qualifications differed from participants with higher educational qualifications in terms of verbatim knowledge in the group percentages. (4) Conclusions: The results indicate that all three forms of presentation are suitable for conveying the content. Further research should take the individual preferences regarding the format into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Pascal Aubertin & Thomas Frese & Jürgen Kasper & Wilfried Mau & Gabriele Meyer & Rafael Mikolajczyk & Matthias Richter & Jan Schildmann & Anke Steckelberg, 2023. "Efficacy of Three Numerical Presentation Formats on Lay People’s Comprehension and Risk Perception of Fact Boxes—A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:2165-:d:1046389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/2165/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/2165/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lisa M. Schwartz & Steven Woloshin & H. Gilbert Welch, 2007. "The Drug Facts Box: Providing Consumers with Simple Tabular Data on Drug Benefit and Harm," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 655-662, September.
    2. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    3. Kathryn J. Aikin & Amie C. O’Donoghue & John L. Swasy & Helen W. Sullivan, 2011. "Randomized Trial of Risk Information Formats in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 23-33, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael J. Fell & Alexandra Schneiders & David Shipworth, 2019. "Consumer Demand for Blockchain-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Electricity Trading in the United Kingdom: An Online Survey Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-25, October.
    2. Su Keng Tan & Wai Keung Leung & Alexander Tin Hong Tang & Roger A Zwahlen, 2017. "Effects of mandibular setback with or without maxillary advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways: An overview of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Ángel Enrique & Juana Bretón-López & Guadalupe Molinari & Rosa M. Baños & Cristina Botella, 2018. "Efficacy of an adaptation of the Best Possible Self intervention implemented through positive technology: a randomized control trial," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(3), pages 671-689, September.
    4. Gerben ter Riet & Paula Chesley & Alan G Gross & Lara Siebeling & Patrick Muggensturm & Nadine Heller & Martin Umbehr & Daniela Vollenweider & Tsung Yu & Elie A Akl & Lizzy Brewster & Olaf M Dekkers &, 2013. "All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-6, November.
    5. Iranzu Mugueta-Aguinaga & Begonya Garcia-Zapirain, 2017. "FRED: Exergame to Prevent Dependence and Functional Deterioration Associated with Ageing. A Pilot Three-Week Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, November.
    6. Spyridon N Papageorgiou & Georgios N Antonoglou & George K Sándor & Theodore Eliades, 2017. "Randomized clinical trials in orthodontics are rarely registered a priori and often published late or not at all," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Milagros Molero-Zafra & María Teresa Mitjans-Lafont & María Jesús Hernández-Jiménez & Marián Pérez-Marín, 2022. "Psychological Intervention in Women Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse: An Open Study—Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing EMDR Psychotherapy and Trauma-Based Cognitive Therapy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Eun-Hi Kong & Myoungsuk Kim & Seonho Kim, 2021. "Effects of a Web-Based Educational Program Regarding Physical Restraint Reduction in Long-Term Care Settings on Nursing Students: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-10, June.
    9. Xiaoxuan Gong & Shaowen Tang & Jiangjin Li & Xiwen Zhang & Xiaoyi Tian & Shuren Ma, 2017. "Antithrombotic therapy strategies for atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-13, October.
    10. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    11. Alexander P. L. Martindale & Carrie D. Llewellyn & Richard O. Visser & Benjamin Ng & Victoria Ngai & Aditya U. Kale & Lavinia Ferrante Ruffano & Robert M. Golub & Gary S. Collins & David Moher & Melis, 2024. "Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Juliane Piasseschi de Bernardin Gonçalves & Giancarlo Lucchetti & Paulo Rossi Menezes & Homero Vallada, 2017. "Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, October.
    13. Jovana Kuzmanovic Pficer & Slobodan Dodic & Vojkan Lazic & Goran Trajkovic & Natasa Milic & Biljana Milicic, 2017. "Occlusal stabilization splint for patients with temporomandibular disorders: Meta-analysis of short and long term effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    14. Weißbach Rafael, 2016. "Kommentar zu „Die Interpretation des p-Wertes – Grundsätzliche Missverständnisse“," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 236(5), pages 577-580, October.
    15. Wendy Hens & Dirk Vissers & Nick Verhaeghe & Jan Gielen & Luc Van Gaal & Jan Taeymans, 2021. "Unsupervised Exercise Training Was Not Found to Improve the Metabolic Health or Phenotype over a 6-Month Dietary Intervention: A Randomised Controlled Trial with an Embedded Economic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Christopher Snyder & Ran Zhuo, 2018. "Sniff Tests as a Screen in the Publication Process: Throwing out the Wheat with the Chaff," NBER Working Papers 25058, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Maria Giné-Garriga & Carme Martin-Borràs & Anna Puig-Ribera & Carlos Martín-Cantera & Mercè Solà & Antonio Cuesta-Vargas & on behalf of the PPAF Group, 2013. "The Effect of a Physical Activity Program on the Total Number of Primary Care Visits in Inactive Patients: A 15-Month Randomized Controlled Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-8, June.
    18. Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr & Yun-Chun Wu & Moritz Scheidgen & Yu-Kang Tu, 2015. "Effect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-9, September.
    19. Salvador Angosto & Jerónimo García-Fernández & Irena Valantine & Moisés Grimaldi-Puyana, 2020. "The Intention to Use Fitness and Physical Activity Apps: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-25, August.
    20. Nahid Norouzi-Gheidari & Alejandro Hernandez & Philippe S. Archambault & Johanne Higgins & Lise Poissant & Dahlia Kairy, 2019. "Feasibility, Safety and Efficacy of a Virtual Reality Exergame System to Supplement Upper Extremity Rehabilitation Post-Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial and Proof of Principle," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:2165-:d:1046389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.