Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-Accuracy, comprehension and preferences.

OBJECTIVE Statistical health risk information has proved notoriously confusing and difficult to understand. While past research indicates that presenting risk information in a frequency format is superior to relative risk and probability formats, the optimal characteristics of frequency formats are still unclear. The aim of this study is to determine the features of 1000 person frequency diagrams (pictographs) which result in the greatest speed and accuracy of graphical perception. METHODS Participants estimated the difference in chance of survival when taking or not taking Drug A, on a pictograph format, varying by mode (one-graph/two-graph), direction (vertical/horizontal), and shading (shaded/unshaded), and their preferences for the different formats. Their understanding of different components of the 1000 person diagram was assessed. Responses were timed and scored for accuracy. RESULTS Horizontal pictographs were perceived faster and more accurately than vertical formats. Two-graph pictographs were perceived faster than one-graph formats. Shading reduced response time in two-graph formats, but increased response times in one-graph formats. Shaded and one-graph pictographs were preferred. CONCLUSIONS As shading and one-graph formats were preferred, further clarification as to why shading negatively impacts on response times in the one-graph format is warranted. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Horizontal pictographs are optimal.

[1]  Cornelia M. Ruland,et al.  Improving patient safety through informatics tools for shared decision making and risk communication , 2004, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[2]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Communicating Statistical Information , 2000, Science.

[3]  Deb Feldman-Stewart,et al.  Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids. , 2004, Patient education and counseling.

[4]  M. Schapira,et al.  The Influence of Graphic Format on Breast Cancer Risk Communication , 2006, Journal of health communication.

[5]  John A. Sparrow,et al.  Graphical displays in information systems: some data properties influencing the effectiveness of alternative forms , 1989 .

[6]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Patient Education Materials about the Treatment of Early-Stage Prostate Cancer: A Critical Review , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[7]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Peter Cantillon,et al.  Using computers for assessment in medicine , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  P. Fayers,et al.  The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1990 .

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

[11]  Erika A. Waters,et al.  Formats for Improving Risk Communication in Medical Tradeoff Decisions , 2006, Journal of health communication.

[12]  A. Stiggelbout,et al.  Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. , 2004, Patient education and counseling.

[13]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods , 1984 .

[14]  R Fuller,et al.  Risk communication and older people-understanding of probability and risk information by medical inpatients aged 75 years and older. , 2001, Age and ageing.

[15]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1986 .

[16]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes. , 2001, Journal of health communication.

[17]  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.

[18]  Ian Spence,et al.  The discrimination of graphical elements , 2001 .

[19]  C M Carswell,et al.  Choosing Specifiers: An Evaluation of the Basic Tasks Model of Graphical Perception , 1992, Human factors.

[20]  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.

[21]  Douglas J. Gillan,et al.  Minimalism and the Syntax of Graphs , 1994 .

[22]  Ilpo Kojo,et al.  Reading vertical text from a computer screen , 2004, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[23]  R Fuller,et al.  How informed is consent? Understanding of pictorial and verbal probability information by medical inpatients , 2002, Postgraduate medical journal.

[24]  Nancy L. Kocovski,et al.  Perception of Quantitative Information for Treatment Decisions , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[25]  C. McHorney,et al.  Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[26]  D. Henry,et al.  Describing treatment effects to patients , 2003, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[27]  Kimihiko Yamagishi When a 12.86% Mortality is More Dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication , 1997 .

[28]  A. Edwards,et al.  Safety from numbers: identifying drug related morbidity using electronic records in primary care , 2004, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[29]  France Légaré,et al.  Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[30]  I. Lipkus,et al.  Testing different formats for communicating colorectal cancer risk. , 1999, Journal of health communication.

[31]  Hyojung Seo,et al.  Head-free reading of horizontally and vertically arranged texts , 2002, Vision Research.

[32]  Ronald M Epstein,et al.  Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. , 2004, JAMA.

[33]  J. Burkell,et al.  What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. , 2004, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[34]  R McGill,et al.  Graphical Perception and Graphical Methods for Analyzing Scientific Data , 1985, Science.

[35]  P. Ubel,et al.  Reducing the Influence of Anecdotal Reasoning on People’s Health Care Decisions: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Statistics? , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[36]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review , 1999, BMJ.