Trial reportMedicine2017
The effect of public reporting presentation on patients' decision making: An experimental survey in Yunan Province, China.
Trial report in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public reporting of comparative performance information (PRCPI) influence patients' decision making and optimal presentation of PRCPI is urgently required for successful patients' engagement and quality improvement. This study was to explore the presentation of PRCPI impacting on consumers' decision making.This research applied a controlled design, with participants allocated randomly to 6 groups, and a total of 515 participants were recruited in Yunnan province. Five aspects of PRCPI presentations were evaluated, including display (star rating vs numeric information), and whether information was simplified, interpreted, overload, or ranked. Participants were stimulated to identify the best or worst physicians with a hypothetical scenario. Main outcome measures were correct choices rate of best/worst physicians, indicating participants fully understood and correctly used PRCPI. χ test and logistic regression were applied to assess the effect between different presentations on consumers' decision making.The correct choices rate is only 48.93%. Compared with star rating, numerical information helped participants differentiate low-performance physicians (OR = 2.573, P = .029), including low-performance physicians in antibiotics (OR = 2.974, P = .031) and low-performance physicians in injections (OR = 2.369, P = .035). Disordered information impeded participants to fully understand and correctly use PRCPI (OR = 0.519, P = .041). The effect was mainly reflected on participants differentiating low-performance physicians (OR = 0.491, P = .039) and low-performance physicians in injections (OR = 0.440, P = .016). Other aspects of PRCPI showed nonsignificant impacts on consumers' decision making.Presentation, including information display and ranking, can influence patients' correct usage of PRCPI and the effect was mainly observed when the patients were identifying poorly performing physicians. The present study demonstrated that numerical and ranked PRCPI, combined with sufficient patient education, could be most effective to facilitate patient use.
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.