IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i1p12-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Public Interpretation of Probabilistic Test Results

Author

Listed:
  • Stefania Pighin
  • Michel Gonzalez
  • Lucia Savadori
  • Vittorio Girotto

Abstract

Health service users err in posttest probability evaluations. Here we document for the first time that users succeed when they reason about numbers of cases and make distributive evaluations. A sample of women interested in prenatal testing incorrectly evaluated the posttest probability that a given fetus had an anomaly, but regardless of their numeracy level, they correctly apportioned the cases for and against that hypothesis. This finding shows that health service users are not doomed to fail in dealing with single-case probabilities and suggests that probabilistic data can be used effectively for communicating test results.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefania Pighin & Michel Gonzalez & Lucia Savadori & Vittorio Girotto, 2015. "Improving Public Interpretation of Probabilistic Test Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 12-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:1:p:12-15
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14536268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14536268
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14536268?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:1:p:12-15. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.