ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2017
Subjective Numeracy and the Influence of Order and Amount of Audible Information on Perceived Medication Value.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variability in Affect and Willingness to Take Medication.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018Trial
- Evidence-Based Design of Prescription Medication Information: An Updated Scoping Review.Drug safety · 2025Article
- How Synthesis Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOrder and amount of information influence patients' risk perceptions, but most studies have evaluated patients' reactions to written materials. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of 4 communication strategies, varying in their order and/or amount of information, on judgments related to an audible description of a new medication and among patients who varied in subjective numeracy.
methodsWe created 5 versions of a hypothetical scenario describing a new medication. The versions were composed to elucidate whether order and/or amount of the information describing benefits and adverse events influenced how subjects valued a new medication. After listening to a randomly assigned version, perceived medication value was measured by asking subjects to choose one of the following statements: the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks and benefits are equally balanced, or the benefits outweigh the risks.
resultsOf the 432 patients contacted, 389 participated in the study. Listening to a brief description of benefits followed by an extended description of adverse events resulted in a greater likelihood of perceiving that the medication's benefits outweighed the risks compared with 1) presenting the extended adverse events description before the benefits, 2) giving a greater amount of information related to benefits, and 3) sandwiching the adverse events between benefits. These associations were only observed among subjects with average or higher subjective numeracy.
conclusionIf confirmed in future studies, our results suggest that, for patients with average or better subjective numeracy, perceived medication value is highest when a brief presentation of benefits is followed by an extended description of adverse events.
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.