The Impact of Web-Based Risk Calculators on Health Risk Perceptions and Information Processing

Every day, millions of Americans use the Internet to obtain health information. To satisfy this demand, organizations deliver a variety of content that promotes awareness and education and informs healthrelated decision making. Given advances in web technology, new statistical models of disease, and the shift towards shared patient decision making, these e-health services are increasingly complex. Through applications such as personal health records and “health risk calculators” Internet users can obtain personalized and interactive feedback about their current health state, model-based predictions about their future health, and tailored education about healthy behavior. While providing the public with more content to inform health-related decisions is an appropriate goal, research in health psychology and behavioral decision making suggest the importance of clearly understanding the perceptual and behavioral responses when laypersons are presented with statistical results and personalized risk information. Little research has studied how web-based personalized and interactive health applications actually impact the beliefs and behavior of users. In two separate experiments, we measured the effect of a type 2 diabetes “risk calculator” website on user information processing and subjective risk perceptions about diabetes. In the first experiment, 100 middle-aged and elderly adults were randomized to one of three conditions in order to determine how personalized risk estimates and interactive risk feedback influenced information usage and beliefs about future diabetes onset. Results showed that personalization and interactive features did not lead to increases in information utilization as expected. Instead, we show in some cases personalization actually reduced the amount of information accessed and the extent to which users attended to and carefully considered health risk content. The experiment did show that personalization was related to modest increases in the accuracy of absolute diabetes risk estimates but did not motivate significant changes in relative or affective risk perceptions. A second study of 34 university staff members was qualitatively suggestive of similar results. Future work is needed to further understand the behavioral implications when complex statistical models are integrated with publicly available health information websites. This may aid the design of health information applications and ensure that providers of these tools are effectively motivating improved awareness and education about health risks.

[1]  Jessica S Ancker,et al.  Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. , 2007, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[2]  P. Ubel,et al.  Rethinking the Objectives of Decision Aids: A Call for Conceptual Clarity , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  Robert A Rizza,et al.  Progression From Newly Acquired Impaired Fasting Glucose to Type 2 Diabetes , 2007, Diabetes Care.

[4]  Karen R. Sepucha,et al.  Toward the 'tipping point': decision aids and informed patient choice. , 2007, Health affairs.

[5]  N. Weinstein,et al.  Risk perceptions: assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. , 2007, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[6]  J. Leahy Prevalence of Diabetes and Impaired Fasting Glucose in Adults in the U.S. Population: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2002 , 2007 .

[7]  Elizabeth Sillence,et al.  Health Websites that people can trust - the case of hypertension , 2007, Interact. Comput..

[8]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effects of Personalizaion and Familiarity on Trust and Adoption of Recommendation Agents , 2006, MIS Q..

[9]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial. , 2006, Patient education and counseling.

[10]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Numeracy and Decision Making , 2022 .

[11]  Shuk Ying Ho,et al.  Web Personalization as a Persuasion Strategy: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[12]  M. Feinleib National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) , 2005 .

[13]  B. Johnson,et al.  Testing and Expanding a Model of Cognitive Processing of Risk Information , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  Y. Jang,et al.  Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2010 by the American Diabetes Association: Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease , 2010 .

[15]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[16]  Robert Fletcher,et al.  Tailored Computer-Based Cancer Risk Communication: Correcting Colorectal Cancer Risk Perception , 2004, Journal of health communication.

[17]  G. Colditz,et al.  Colon Cancer: Risk Perceptions and Risk Communication , 2004, Journal of health communication.

[18]  Matthew W Kreuter,et al.  Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies for enhancing information relevance. , 2003, American journal of health behavior.

[19]  David M Eddy,et al.  Archimedes: a trial-validated model of diabetes. , 2003, Diabetes care.

[20]  Sumit Sarkar,et al.  The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[21]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Studying Heuristic‐Systematic Processing of Risk Communication , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[22]  G. Nijpels,et al.  Perceived risk for Type 2 diabetes in participants in a stepwise population‐screening programme , 2003, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[23]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Linking the Heuristic-Systematic Model and Depth of Processing , 2002, Commun. Res..

[24]  B. Johnson Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach , 2002 .

[25]  W. Klein,et al.  Dispositional, Unrealistic, and Comparative Optimism: Differential Relations with the Knowledge and Processing of Risk Information and Beliefs about Personal Risk , 2002 .

[26]  Jonathan W. Palmer,et al.  Web Site Usability, Design, and Performance Metrics , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  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.

[28]  David M. Eddy,et al.  Archimedes: a new model for simulating health care systems--the mathematical formulation , 2002, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[29]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[30]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Time Flies When You're Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs About Information Technology Usage , 2000, MIS Q..

[31]  John Vergo,et al.  A user-centered design approach to personalization , 2000, CACM.

[32]  R M Kaplan,et al.  Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. , 1999, American journal of preventive medicine.

[33]  F. Bull,et al.  Understanding how people process health information: a comparison of tailored and nontailored weight-loss materials. , 1999, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[34]  Craig W. Trumbo,et al.  Heuristic-Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[35]  S. Dunwoody,et al.  Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. , 1999, Environmental research.

[36]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  Treating people with information: an analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[37]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces , 1997 .

[38]  W. Klein,et al.  Objective standards are not enough: affective, self-evaluative, and behavioral responses to social comparison information. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[39]  K. Anderson,et al.  An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals. , 1991, Circulation.

[40]  M. Gail,et al.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. , 1989, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[41]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[42]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches , 1981 .

[43]  I. Lerch,et al.  Perceptions of Risk , 1981 .

[44]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.