Trial reportArthritis care & research2018
Influence of Explanatory Images on Risk Perceptions and Treatment Preference.
Trial report in Arthritis care & research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do visual aids influenced patients' risk perceptions for rare and very rare risks?Patient education and counseling · 2018Trial
- Impact of gist intervention on automated system interpretability and user decision making.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- 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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine whether providing patients with a series of balance scales (BS), depicting a reciprocal relationship between achieving disease control and increasing the risk of infection, influences treatment preference.
methodsParticipants were randomized to receive a description of a medication in which risk of infection was relayed using 1 of 4 formats, including numbers only, numbers + icon array (IA), numbers + BS, or numbers + IA + BS (i.e., combination). We compared the likelihood of starting the medication across the 4 formats, and evaluated whether the influence of risk formats varied by numeracy and gist risk appraisals.
resultsThe mean ± SE likelihood of starting the medication was higher among participants randomized to the combination format (3.85 ± 0.09) compared to those who viewed the BS (3.56 ± 0.09; P = 0.0222) or numbers-only formats (3.51 ± 0.09; P = 0.0069). Viewing an IA alone was associated with a lower likelihood of starting the medication among participants lower in numeracy and endorsing a risk-avoidant noncompensatory gist risk appraisal. Conversely, viewing an IA (with or without the BS) was associated with a greater likelihood of starting the medication among patients with higher numeracy and compensatory risk appraisals.
conclusionAdding explanatory images to IAs increases patient likelihood to take a medication in those with low numeracy and a noncompensatory gist risk appraisal. Explanatory images may be a feasible approach to improve willingness to try medication among subjects who are especially risk averse and believe that any risk is unacceptable.
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.