ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021
Use of a quantitative data report in a hypothetical decision scenario for health policymaking: a computer-assisted laboratory study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative data reports are widely produced to inform health policy decisions. Policymakers are expected to critically assess provided information in order to incorporate the best available evidence into the decision-making process. Many other factors are known to influence this process, but little is known about how quantitative data reports are actually read. We explored the reading behavior of (future) health policy decision-makers, using innovative methods.
methodsWe conducted a computer-assisted laboratory study, involving starting and advanced students in medicine and health sciences, and professionals as participants. They read a quantitative data report to inform a decision on the use of resources for long-term care in dementia in a hypothetical decision scenario. Data were collected through eye-tracking, questionnaires, and a brief interview. Eye-tracking data were used to generate 'heatmaps' and five measures of reading behavior. The questionnaires provided participants' perceptions of understandability and helpfulness as well as individual characteristics. Interviews documented reasons for attention to specific report sections. The quantitative analysis was largely descriptive, complemented by Pearson correlations. Interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis.
resultsIn total, 46 individuals participated [students (85%), professionals (15%)]. Eye-tracking observations showed that the participants spent equal time and attention for most parts of the presented report, but were less focused when reading the methods section. The qualitative content analysis identified 29 reasons for attention to a report section related to four topics. Eye-tracking measures were largely unrelated to participants' perceptions of understandability and helpfulness of the report.
conclusionsEye-tracking data added information on reading behaviors that were not captured by questionnaires or interviews with health decision-makers.
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.