Trial reportPatient education and counseling2018
Do visual aids influenced patients' risk perceptions for rare and very rare risks?
Trial report in Patient education and counseling, 2018. 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.
- Differences in Data Trustworthiness and Risk Perception between Bar Graphs and Pictograms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine whether visual aids (a graphic representation and/or conceptual illustrations) influence patients' risk perceptions for rare and very rare risks.
methodsParticipants were randomized to a scenario which varied by probability of infection (2% or 0.2%) and visual aid: numbers only, numbers + graphic representation, numbers + conceptual illustrations, or numbers + graphic representation + conceptual illustrations. Risk perceptions and likelihood of starting the medication were examined across the four formats, separately, in participants with and without a college education.
resultsAdding a graphic representation and/or conceptual illustrations did not affect risk perceptions among those with a higher level of education. Adding both a graphic representation + conceptual illustrations decreased risk perceptions and increased likelihood of starting the medication among participants randomized to the 2%, but not 0.2% scenario, among participants with lower levels of education.
conclusionAdding a graphic representation + conceptual illustrations to numbers may influence perceptions for rare, but not very rare, risks among patients with lower education. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should be aware of the differential effects of visual aids developed to facilitate risk communication. Patients with higher levels of education may be less responsive to visual aids than those with lower education.
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.