Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19697253›Full record

ArticlePsychology, health & medicine2009

Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions.

Sean Young, Daniel M Oppenheimer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology, health & medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Do people really prefer verbal probabilities?Psychological research · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2014
    Article
  12. Cardiovascular risk.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sean YoungDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. seany@psych.stanford.edu
Daniel M Oppenheimer

Funding

Postdoctoral Training in Global AIDS Prevention ResearchT32MH080634 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI JESSE LAWTON CLARK, Pamina Mae Gorbach · 2007 to 2026
$6.4M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH080634
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Past research suggests that semantic and numerical medical risk descriptors may lead to miscommunication and misinterpretation of risk. However, little research has been conducted on systematic features of this bias, and the resulting potential risks to people contemplating or receiving treatment. Three studies explore the influence of verbal versus numerical medical risk descriptions. In Study 1a, San Francisco Bay area residents (N = 59) were presented with semantic descriptors for low-likelihood events and reported their perceived quantitative risk for the events. In Study 1b, undergraduates (N = 29) were presented with semantic versus numerical information about side effects for a prescribed medication and reported their perceived risk and adherence intentions. In Study 1c, San Francisco Bay area residents (N = 125) were presented with semantic versus numerical information about their risk for a disease and reported their perceived risk and intention to adhere to a prescribed treatment. The results of the first study suggest that people systematically overestimate the likelihood of low probability events described in semantic terms such as "low risk" or "people may occasionally experience." The results of the second and third experiment suggest that presenting semantic information about the risks of engaging in a new behavior makes people less likely to engage in that behavior, whereas presenting semantic information about the risks of not engaging in a new behavior makes people more likely to engage in the behavior. The decision to present semantic versus probabilistic information is tantamount to a decision about whether to encourage risk acceptance versus risk avoidance.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthIntentionPersuasive CommunicationHumansPatient ComplianceRisk AssessmentSan FranciscoSemanticsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID19697253
PMCPMC2956070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.