ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2009
How should risk be communicated to children: a cross-sectional study comparing different formats of probability information.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving assent in health research: a rapid systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Pooled it
- Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- Impact of numerical information on risk knowledge regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among schoolgirls: a randomised controlled trial.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2013Trial
- Parental and public views on genomic newborn screening: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Expressing uncertainty in Human-Robot interaction.PloS one · 2020Article
- Talking with Children About Adult-Onset Hereditary Cancer Risk: A Developmental Approach for Parents.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Parents' and children's communication about genetic risk: a qualitative study, learning from families' experiences.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011Article
- Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2010Article
- Communicating Risks and Benefits in Informed Consent for Research: A Qualitative Study.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNewborn screening, which identifies inherited disorders and sometimes carrier status, will increasingly involve health professionals in the provision of appropriate information and support to children and their families. The ability to understand carrier results relies on an understanding of probabilistic terms. However, little is known about how best to convey probabilistic medical information to children. Research with adult populations suggests information format significantly affects comprehension. This study aimed to explore which presentation format is most effective in conveying probabilistic information to children.
methodsA probabilistic task based on the cup game was used to measure which of five different formats was associated with greatest understanding in children aged 7-11 years old (n = 106). Formats used were verbal labels (e.g. rarely, sometimes), percentages, proportion-word (e.g. 1 in X), proportion-notation (e.g. 1:X) and pie charts. There was also an additional mixed format condition. In each trial a picture was presented of three cups, each with a different probability depicted beneath it, and the child was asked to select which cup was most likely to contain the ball. Three trials were presented per format. Children also rated how certain they were that they had answered correctly.
resultsThere was a significant relationship between format and comprehension scores. Post hoc tests showed children performed significantly better when probability was presented as a pie chart, in comparison to percentages, proportion-notation, proportion-word and mixed format trials. Furthermore, most children (84%) got all trials correct for this format and children were significantly more certain that their response was correct in the pie chart trials compared to all the other formats (p < 0.001). Significant positive correlations were found between self-ratings of certainty and comprehension of verbal labels, percentages and pie charts. Older age was also associated with better performance on all formats except percentages. Overall comprehension was calculated by summing the scores for the individual trials and this was independently associated with older age and higher IQ.
conclusionThe results suggest that 7-11 year olds can understand probability information, but that the format used will significantly affect the accuracy and confidence with which children in this age group make judgements about the likelihood of an event. Of the formats studied, pie charts appear to be the optimal method of presenting probabilistic information to children in this age group. Health professionals and designers of health messages should be cognisant of this when communicating medical information to children aged 7-11 years old.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.