IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i7p834-847.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts

Author

Listed:
  • Lyndal J. Trevena

    (Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Ask Share Know NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence, The University of Sydney, Australia)

  • Carissa Bonner

    (Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Ask Share Know NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence, The University of Sydney, Australia)

  • Yasmina Okan

    (Centre for Decision Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

  • Ellen Peters

    (University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA)

  • Wolfgang Gaissmaier

    (University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)

  • Paul K. J. Han

    (Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA
    School of Medicine, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA)

  • Elissa Ozanne

    (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA)

  • Danielle Timmermans

    (Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands)

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

    (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

Abstract

Background Decision aid developers have to convey complex task-specific numeric information in a way that minimizes bias and promotes understanding of the options available within a particular decision. Whereas our companion paper summarizes fundamental issues, this article focuses on more complex, task-specific aspects of presenting numeric information in patient decision aids. Methods As part of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards third evidence update, we gathered an expert panel of 9 international experts who revised and expanded the topics covered in the 2013 review working in groups of 2 to 3 to update the evidence, based on their expertise and targeted searches of the literature. The full panel then reviewed and provided additional revisions, reaching consensus on the final version. Results Five of the 10 topics addressed more complex task-specific issues. We found strong evidence for using independent event rates and/or incremental absolute risk differences for the effect size of test and screening outcomes. Simple visual formats can help to reduce common judgment biases and enhance comprehension but can be misleading if not well designed. Graph literacy can moderate the effectiveness of visual formats and hence should be considered in tool design. There is less evidence supporting the inclusion of personalized and interactive risk estimates. Discussion More complex numeric information. such as the size of the benefits and harms for decision options, can be better understood by using incremental absolute risk differences alongside well-designed visual formats that consider the graph literacy of the intended audience. More research is needed into when and how to use personalized and/or interactive risk estimates because their complexity and accessibility may affect their feasibility in clinical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:7:p:834-847
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21996342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X21996342
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X21996342?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valerie F. Reyna, 2008. "A Theory of Medical Decision Making and Health: Fuzzy Trace Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 850-865, November.
    2. Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nancy Kocovski & Beth A. McConnell & Michael D. Brundage & William J. Mackillop, 2000. "Perception of Quantitative Information for Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(2), pages 228-238, April.
    3. Erika A. Waters & Julia Maki & Ying Liu & Nicole Ackermann & Chelsey R. Carter & Hank Dart & Deborah J. Bowen & Linda D. Cameron & Graham A. Colditz, 2021. "Risk Ladder, Table, or Bulleted List? Identifying Formats That Effectively Communicate Personalized Risk and Risk Reduction Information for Multiple Diseases," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 74-88, January.
    4. Romano, Alessandro & Sotis, Chiara & Dominioni, Goran & Guidi, Sebastián, 2020. "The scale of COVID-19 graphs affects understanding, attitudes, and policy preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106217, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2009. "Effect of Risk Communication Formats on Risk Perception Depending on Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 483-490, July.
    6. Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Mirta Galesic & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "Do Icon Arrays Help Reduce Denominator Neglect?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 672-684, November.
    7. Judith Covey, 2007. "A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Presenting Treatment Benefits in Different Formats," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 638-654, September.
    8. Lisa M. Schwartz & Steven Woloshin & H. Gilbert Welch, 2005. "Can Patients Interpret Health Information? An Assessment of the Medical Data Interpretation Test," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(3), pages 290-300, May.
    9. Noel T. Brewer & Melissa B. Gilkey & Sarah E. Lillie & Bradford W. Hesse & Stacey L. Sheridan, 2012. "Tables or Bar Graphs? Presenting Test Results in Electronic Medical Records," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 545-553, July.
    10. Paul K. J. Han & Christine Lary & Adam Black & Caitlin Gutheil & Hayley Mandeville & Jason Yahwak & Mayuko Fukunaga, 2019. "Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 950-961, November.
    11. Yasmina Okan & Eva Janssen & Mirta Galesic & Erika A. Waters, 2019. "Using the Short Graph Literacy Scale to Predict Precursors of Health Behavior Change," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 183-195, April.
    12. Jurriaan P. Oudhoff & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans, 2015. "The Effect of Different Graphical and Numerical Likelihood Formats on Perception of Likelihood and Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 487-500, May.
    13. Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Loes T. E. Kessels & Robert A. C. Ruiter & Nanne K. De Vries & Hein De Vries, 2010. "Understanding the Positive Effects of Graphical Risk Information on Comprehension: Measuring Attention Directed to Written, Tabular, and Graphical Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1387-1398, September.
    14. Michael Anthony Fajardo & Bandar Durayb & Haoxi Zhong & Lyndal Trevena & Adrian Traeger & Carissa Bonner, 2019. "Online Decision Aids for Knee Osteoarthritis and Low Back Pain: An Environmental Scan and Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 328-335, May.
    15. Alessandro Romano & Chiara Sotis & Goran Dominioni & Sebastián Guidi, 2020. "The scale of COVID‐19 graphs affects understanding, attitudes, and policy preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1482-1494, November.
    16. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    17. Daniel A. Hamstra & Skyler B. Johnson & Stephanie Daignault & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Jeremy M. G. Taylor & Knoll Larkin & Alexander Wood & Angela Fagerlin, 2015. "The Impact of Numeracy on Verbatim Knowledge of the Longitudinal Risk for Prostate Cancer Recurrence following Radiation Therapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 27-36, January.
    18. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Ashley J. Housten & Geetanjali R. Kamath & Therese B. Bevers & Scott B. Cantor & Nickell Dixon & Andre Hite & Michael A. Kallen & Viola B. Leal & Liang Li & Robert J. Volk, 2020. "Does Animation Improve Comprehension of Risk Information in Patients with Low Health Literacy? A Randomized Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(1), pages 17-28, January.
    20. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2017. "Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 546-556, March.
    21. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    22. James G. Dolan & Feng Qian & Peter J. Veazie, 2012. "How Well Do Commonly Used Data Presentation Formats Support Comparative Effectiveness Evaluations?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 840-850, November.
    23. Stone, Eric R. & Sieck, Winston R. & Bull, Benita E. & Frank Yates, J. & Parks, Stephanie C. & Rush, Carolyn J., 2003. "Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 19-36, January.
    24. Peter Scalia & Marie-Anne Durand & Jan Kremer & Marjan Faber & Glyn Elwyn, 2018. "Online, Interactive Option Grid Patient Decision Aids and their Effect on User Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 56-68, January.
    25. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2016. "High Numerates Count Icons and Low Numerates Process Large Areas in Pictographs: Results of an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1599-1614, August.
    26. Deb Feldman-Stewart & Michael D. Brundage & Vladimir Zotov, 2007. "Further Insight into the Perception of Quantitative Information: Judgments of Gist in Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(1), pages 34-43, January.
    27. Michelle McDowell & Gerd Gigerenzer & Odette Wegwarth & Felix G. Rebitschek, 2019. "Effect of Tabular and Icon Fact Box Formats on Comprehension of Benefits and Harms of Prostate Cancer Screening: A Randomized Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(1), pages 41-56, January.
    28. Rebecca Hess & Vivianne H.M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "How do people perceive graphical risk communication? The role of subjective numeracy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 47-61, January.
    29. Carmen Keller & Alex Junghans, 2017. "Does Guiding Toward Task-Relevant Information Help Improve Graph Processing and Graph Comprehension of Individuals with Low or High Numeracy? An Eye-Tracker Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 942-954, November.
    30. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2018. "Designing Graphs that Promote Both Risk Understanding and Behavior Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 929-946, May.
    31. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, October.
    2. Edward J. D. Webb & David Meads & Ieva Eskytė & Helen L. Ford & Hilary L. Bekker & Jeremy Chataway & George Pepper & Joachim Marti & Yasmina Okan & Sue H. Pavitt & Klaus Schmierer & Ana Manzano, 2023. "Decision Making About Disease-Modifying Treatments for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Stated Preferences and Real-World Choices," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(5), pages 457-471, September.
    3. Dawn Stacey & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 729-733, October.

    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. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    2. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    3. Erika A. Waters & Jennifer M. Taber & Nicole Ackermann & Julia Maki & Amy M. McQueen & Laura D. Scherer, 2023. "Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 430-444, May.
    4. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    5. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2017. "Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 546-556, March.
    6. Paul C. Price & Grace A. Carlock & Sarah Crouse & Mariana Vargas Arciga, 2022. "Effects of icon arrays to communicate risk in a repeated risky decision-making task," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(2), pages 378-399, March.
    7. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    8. Beate Jahn & Sarah Friedrich & Joachim Behnke & Joachim Engel & Ursula Garczarek & Ralf Münnich & Markus Pauly & Adalbert Wilhelm & Olaf Wolkenhauer & Markus Zwick & Uwe Siebert & Tim Friede, 2022. "On the role of data, statistics and decisions in a pandemic," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 106(3), pages 349-382, September.
    9. Schonlau Matthias & Peters Ellen, 2012. "Comprehension of Graphs and Tables Depend on the Task: Empirical Evidence from Two Web-Based Studies," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-35, August.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:2:p:378-399 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2016. "High Numerates Count Icons and Low Numerates Process Large Areas in Pictographs: Results of an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1599-1614, August.
    12. Mehdi Mourali & Zhiyong Yang, 2023. "Misperception of Multiple Risks in Medical Decision-Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(1), pages 25-47.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:420-432 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2022. "What drives the acceptability of restrictive health policies: An experimental assessment of individual preferences for anti-COVID 19 strategies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    15. Kevin E. Tiede & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2023. "How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 803-820, October.
    16. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Galesic, Mirta, 2010. "Who proficts from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1019-1025, April.
    17. Chiara Sotis & Miriam Allena & Renny Reyes & Alessandro Romano, 2021. "COVID-19 Vaccine Passport and International Traveling: The Combined Effect of Two Nudges on Americans’ Support for the Pass," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-17, August.
    18. Carmen Keller & Christina Kreuzmair & Rebecca Leins-Hess & Michael Siegrist, 2014. "Numeric and graphic risk information processing of high and low numerates in the intuitive and deliberative decision modes: An eye-tracker study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 420-432, September.
    19. Theologos Dergiades & Costas Milas & Elias Mossialos & Theodore Panagiotidis, 2021. "Effectiveness of Government Policies in Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak," Discussion Paper Series 2021_05, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised Feb 2021.
    20. Casey Canfield & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, 2017. "Perceptions of electricity-use communications: effects of information, format, and individual differences," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1132-1153, September.
    21. Schlosser, Ann E., 2018. "What are my chances? An imagery versus discursive processing approach to understanding ratio-bias effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 112-124.
    22. Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Loes T. E. Kessels & Robert A. C. Ruiter & Nanne K. De Vries & Hein De Vries, 2010. "Understanding the Positive Effects of Graphical Risk Information on Comprehension: Measuring Attention Directed to Written, Tabular, and Graphical Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1387-1398, September.

    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:41:y:2021:i:7:p:834-847. 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: 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.