IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i6p649-660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Separate Single-Outcome Risk Presentations Instead of Integrated Multioutcome Formats Improves Comprehension in Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew J. Wallace

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • E. Hope Weissler

    (Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Jui-Chen Yang

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Laura Brotzman

    (University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Matthew A. Corriere

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

  • Eric A. Secemsky

    (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Jessie Sutphin

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • F. Reed Johnson

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Juan Marcos Gonzalez

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Michelle E. Tarver

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Anindita Saha

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Allen L. Chen

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • David J. Gebben

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Misti Malone

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Andrew Farb

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Olufemi Babalola

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Eva M. Rorer

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

    (University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Shelby D. Reed

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

Abstract

Introduction Despite decades of research on risk-communication approaches, questions remain about the optimal methods for conveying risks for different outcomes across multiple time points, which can be necessary in applications such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We sought to compare the effects of 3 design factors: 1) separated versus integrated presentations of the risks for different outcomes, 2) use or omission of icon arrays, and 3) vertical versus horizontal orientation of the time dimension. Methods We conducted a randomized study among a demographically diverse sample of 2,242 US adults recruited from an online panel (mean age 59.8 y, s  = 10.4 y; 21.9% African American) that compared risk-communication approaches that varied in the 3 factors noted above. The primary outcome was the number of correct responses to 12 multiple-choice questions asking survey respondents to identify specific numbers, contrast options to recognize dominance (larger v. smaller risks), and compute differences. We used linear regression to test the effects of the 3 design factors, controlling for health literacy, graph literacy, and numeracy. We also measured choice consistency in a subsequent DCE choice module Results Mean comprehension varied significantly across versions ( P  

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew J. Wallace & E. Hope Weissler & Jui-Chen Yang & Laura Brotzman & Matthew A. Corriere & Eric A. Secemsky & Jessie Sutphin & F. Reed Johnson & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Michelle E. Tarver & Anindit, 2024. "Using Separate Single-Outcome Risk Presentations Instead of Integrated Multioutcome Formats Improves Comprehension in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(6), pages 649-660, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:6:p:649-660
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241258466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241258466
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241258466?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:44:y:2024:i:6:p:649-660. 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.