ArticlePloS one2018
Exploring health literacy and preferences for risk communication among medical oncology patients.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Imprecision and Preferences in Interpretation of Verbal Probabilities in Health: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Pooled it
- Communicating certainty via verbal probability phrases: comparing health contexts with no context.BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Perceived Provision of Perioperative Information and Care by Patients Who Have Undergone Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Arrhythmias as Presentation of Genetic Cardiomyopathy.Circulation research · 2022Review
- Personal factors influencing breast cancer patients' perception of breast conservation surgery in West China.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore adult medical oncology outpatients' understanding of and preferences for the format of health risk information.
methodsTwo surveys, one assessing sociodemographic characteristics and a second survey examining perceptions of risk information.
resultsOf the 361 (74%) consenting patients, 210 completed at least one question on risk communication. 17% to 65% of patients understood numeric risk information, depending on the format of the information. More than 50% of people interpreted a "very good" chance of remission as greater than 80%, greater than 90% or 100%. The most preferred format of information was in both words and numbers (38% to 43%) followed by words alone (28% to 30%).
conclusionNumeric risk information is understood by 17% to 65% of respondents, depending on the format. Interpretation of verbal risk information is highly variable, posing a risk of misunderstanding. Provision of information in both words and numbers may assist in aiding comprehension.
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.