Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27267603›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

Using eye tracking and gaze pattern analysis to test a "dirty bomb" decision aid in a pilot RCT in urban adults with limited literacy.

Sarah Bauerle Bass, Thomas F Gordon, Ryan Gordon, Claudia Parvanta

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah Bauerle BassDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Risk Communication Laboratory, Temple University, College of Public Health, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA. sbass@temple.edu.
Thomas F GordonDepartment of Psychology, University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Health and Social Sciences Bldg., Suite 300, 113 Wilder St., Lowell, MA, 01854, USA.
Ryan GordonDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Risk Communication Laboratory, Temple University, College of Public Health, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA.
Claudia ParvantaDepartment of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of the Sciences, 600 S. 43rd St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Temple University · USUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell · USUniversity of the Sciences · US

Funding

Developing Radiological Risk Communication Materials for Low-Literacy PopulationsR03EB009561 · NIBIB · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI BASS, SARAH B · 2009 to 2010
$164k
NIBIB NIH HHS R03 EB009561
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEye tracking is commonly used in marketing to understand complex responses to materials, but has not been used to understand how low-literacy adults access health information or its relationship to decision making.

methodsThis study assessed how participants use a literacy appropriate "dirty bomb" decision aid. Participants were randomized to receive a CDC "factsheet" (n = 21) or literacy-appropriate aid (n = 29) shown on a computer screen. Using 7 content similar slides, gaze patterns, mean pupil fixation time and mean overall time reading and looking at slides were compared. Groups were also compared by literacy level and effect on 'confidence of knowledge' and intended behavior.

resultsResults revealed differing abilities to read densely written material. Intervention participants more precisely followed text on 4 of 7 content-similar slides compared to control participants whose gaze patterns indicated unread text, or repeated attempts at reading the same text, suggesting difficulty in understanding key preparedness messages. Controls had significantly longer pupil fixations on 5 of 7 slides and spent more overall time on every slide. In those with very low literacy, intervention participants were more likely than controls to say they understood what a "dirty bomb" is and how to respond if one should occur.

conclusionsResults indicate limited- literacy adults, especially those with very low literacy, may not be able to understand how to respond during a "dirty bomb" using available materials, making them vulnerable to negative health events. This study provides insights into how individuals perceive and process risk communication messages, illustrating a rich and nuanced understanding of the qualitative experience of a limited literacy population with written materials. It also demonstrates the feasibility of using these methods on a wider scale to develop more effective health and risk communication messages designed to increase knowledge of and compliance with general health guidelines, and enhance decision making. This has application for those with learning disabilities, those with limited media-literacy skills, and those needing to access the diverse array of assistive technologies now available. Eye tracking is thus a practical approach to understanding these diverse needs to ensure the development of cogent and salient communication.

Indexed as

BioterrorismDecision Support TechniquesEye Movement MeasurementsLiteracyUrban PopulationAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultDecision-making“dirty bomb”Emergency preparednessEye trackingLow literacyRisk communication

Identifiers

PMID27267603
PMCPMC4897859
OpenAlexW2417169334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.