ReviewJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2004
What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials.
Review in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- A new graphical format to communicate treatment effects to patients-A web-based randomized controlled trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Trial
- The impact of numeracy on verbatim knowledge of the longitudinal risk for prostate cancer recurrence following radiation therapy.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2015Trial
- Informing the uninformed: optimizing the consent message using a fractional factorial design.JAMA pediatrics · 2013Trial
- Using animated computer-generated text and graphics to depict the risks and benefits of medical treatment.The American journal of medicine · 2012Trial
- Presenting research risks and benefits to parents: does format matter?Anesthesia and analgesia · 2010Trial
- The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics.Journal of health communication · 2010Trial
- Attributes in stated preference elicitation studies on colorectal cancer screening and their relative importance for decision-making among screenees: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2022Review
- Identifying neonatal early-onset sepsis test and treatment decision thresholds.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Article
- Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- A systematic analysis of online marketing materials used by providers of expanded carrier screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
- On Effective Graphic Communication of Health Inequality: Considerations for Health Policy Researchers.The Milbank quarterly · 2017Article
- Questioning reliability assessments of health information on social media.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2017Review
- Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: the results of two experiments.PloS one · 2015Article
- Saudi young patient understanding of information about side effects: Verbal versus numerical expression.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2014Article
- Community health education at student-run clinics leads to sustained improvement in patients' hepatitis B knowledge.Journal of community health · 2013Article
- Development and Testing of an Abbreviated Numeracy Scale: A Rasch Analysis Approach.Journal of behavioral decision making · 2013Article
- Assessing patient preferences for treatment options and process of care in inflammatory bowel disease: a critical review of quantitative data.The patient · 2013Review
- Numeracy and framing bias in epilepsy.Epilepsy & behavior : E&B · 2011Article
- How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making.Psychological bulletin · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Much consumer health information addresses issues of disease risk or treatment risks and benefits, addressing questions such as "How effective is this treatment?" or "What is the likelihood that this test will give a false positive result?" Insofar as it addresses outcome likelihood, this information is essentially quantitative in nature, which is of critical importance, because quantitative information tends to be difficult to understand and therefore inaccessible to consumers. Information professionals typically examine reading level to determine the accessibility of consumer health information, but this measure does not adequately reflect the difficulty of quantitative information, including materials addressing issues of risk and benefit. As a result, different methods must be used to evaluate this type of consumer health material. There are no standard guidelines or assessment tools for this task, but research in cognitive psychology provides insight into the best ways to present risk and benefit information to promote understanding and minimize interpretation bias. This paper offers an interdisciplinary bridge that brings these results to the attention of information professionals, who can then use them to evaluate consumer health materials addressing risks and benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15098049PMC385301What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.