Effect of different visual presentations on the comprehension of prognostic information: a systematic review

Background Understanding prognostic information can help patients know what may happen to their health over time and make informed decisions. However, communicating prognostic information well can be challenging. Purpose To conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesize research that has evaluated visual presentations that communicate quantitative prognostic information to patients or the public. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO , ERIC and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (from inception to December 2020), and forward and backward citation search. Study selection Two authors independently screened search results and assessed eligibility. To be eligible, studies required a quantitative design and comparison of at least one visual presentation with another presentation of quantitative prognostic information. The primary outcome was comprehension of the presented information. Secondary outcomes were preferences for or satisfaction with the presentations viewed, and behavioral intentions. Data extraction Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data synthesis Eleven studies (all randomized trials) were identified. We grouped studies according to the presentation type evaluated. Bar graph versus pictograph (3 studies): no difference in comprehension between the groups. Survival vs mortality curves (2 studies): no difference in one study; higher comprehension in survival curve group in another study. Tabular format versus pictograph (4 studies): 2 studies reported similar comprehension between groups; 2 found higher comprehension in pictograph groups. Tabular versus free text (3 studies): 2 studies found no difference between groups; 1 found higher comprehension in a tabular group. Limitations Heterogeneity in the visual presentations and outcome measures, precluding meta-analysis. Conclusions No visual presentation appears to be consistently superior to communicate quantitative prognostic information.

[1]  E. Akl,et al.  Framing of health information messages. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  I. Lipkus.  Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  E. Akl,et al.  Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  T. Hoffmann,et al.  The connection between evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. , 2014, JAMA.

[5]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics , 2008, Cancer.

[6]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence Based User's Guide , 2012 .

[7]  A. Strömberg,et al.  Cardiologists' attitudes on communication about prognosis with heart failure patients , 2020, ESC heart failure.

[8]  J. Merz,et al.  How the Manner of Presentation of Data Influences Older Patients in Determining Their Treatment Preferences , 1993, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[9]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  PhD Dr. Dennis J. Mazur MD,et al.  Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[11]  Rocio Garcia-Retamero,et al.  Understanding the Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening , 2015, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[12]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[13]  W. Gaissmaier,et al.  Patients' perceptions of mortality risk for localized prostate cancer vary markedly depending on their treatment strategy , 2016, International journal of cancer.

[14]  Margaret Holmes-Rovner,et al.  Patient comprehension of information for shared treatment decision making: state of the art and future directions. , 2003, Patient education and counseling.

[15]  G. Elwyn,et al.  One hundred years ago: Should milk be boiled? , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Louisa Polak.  Communicating risk to patients and the public. , 2012, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[17]  A. Edwards,et al.  Communicating risk to patients and the public. , 2012, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[18]  Paul K. J. Han,et al.  Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[19]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Simple and Multistate Survival Curves , 2012, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[20]  J. Mack,et al.  Teamwork in prognostic communication: Addressing bottlenecks and barriers , 2020, Pediatric blood & cancer.

[21]  Jessica S. Ancker,et al.  The Practice of Informatics: Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review , 2006, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[22]  D H Hickam,et al.  Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic , 1990, Journal of general internal medicine.

[23]  M. McDowell,et al.  Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on ‘fact boxes' , 2020, Royal Society Open Science.

[24]  A. Rahn,et al.  A new graphical format to communicate treatment effects to patients—A web‐based randomized controlled trial , 2016, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[25]  A. Janssens,et al.  Expectations of wheelchair‐dependency in recently diagnosed patients with multiple sclerosis and their partners , 2003, European journal of neurology.

[26]  B. Zikmund‐Fisher,et al.  The Impact of Numeracy on Verbatim Knowledge of the Longitudinal Risk for Prostate Cancer Recurrence following Radiation Therapy , 2015, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[27]  D H Hickam,et al.  Five-year survival curves: how much data are enough for patient-physician decision making in general surgery? , 1996, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[28]  Edward T. Cokely,et al.  Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics , 2017, Hum. Factors.

[29]  N. Keating,et al.  Evidence-Based Risk Communication , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[30]  C. Charles,et al.  Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). , 1997, Social science & medicine.

[31]  Edward T. Cokely,et al.  Using Visual Aids to Improve Communication of Risks about Health: A Review , 2012, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[32]  J. Sanders,et al.  Communication Strategies for Sharing Prognostic Information With Patients: Beyond Survival Statistics. , 2019, JAMA.

[33]  P. Ubel,et al.  A Demonstration of ‘‘Less Can Be More’’ in Risk Graphics , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[34]  R. Jagsi,et al.  Recurrence risk perception and quality of life following treatment of breast cancer , 2017, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[35]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Mortality versus survival graphs: improving temporal consistency in perceptions of treatment effectiveness. , 2007, Patient education and counseling.

[36]  D H Hickam,et al.  Patients' and Physicians' Interpretations of Graphic Data Displays , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[37]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  The visual communication of risk. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[38]  N. Keating,et al.  Evidence-Based Risk Communication A Systematic Review , 2014 .

[39]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Effect of Tabular and Icon Fact Box Formats on Comprehension of Benefits and Harms of Prostate Cancer Screening: A Randomized Trial , 2019, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[40]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[41]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  What's Time Got to Do with It? Inattention to Duration in Interpretation of Survival Graphs , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[42]  Katrina Armstrong,et al.  Effect of Framing as Gain versus Loss on Understanding and Hypothetical Treatment Choices: Survival and Mortality Curves , 2002, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.