Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35457556›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Differences in Data Trustworthiness and Risk Perception between Bar Graphs and Pictograms.

Munehito Machida, Michio Murakami, Aya Goto

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Munehito MachidaCenter for Integrated Science and Humanities, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7566-9011
Michio MurakamiDepartment of Health Risk Communication, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5557-9801
Aya GotoCenter for Integrated Science and Humanities, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7927-7648
Fukushima Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated whether differences in presentation style affect risk perception, understanding, preference, and trust toward data. One hundred and sixty Fukushima Medical University students were shown the lifetime probability of breast cancer incidence for a 50-year-old woman, presented in both a pictogram and a horizontal bar graph format. Participants rated each of the following on a five-point scale by looking at each figure: risk perception, perceived truth of data, and comparative risk perception. The perceived truth of data was high for pictograms, especially among men and among those defined as having lower health literacy. Women correctly perceived the risk of breast cancer as higher than that of dying in a car accident when the data were presented on a pictogram. There was no difference in risk perception, perceived truth of data, or comparative risk perception arising from being shown the bar graphs and the pictograms in a particular order. There was a 50/50 split on which type of graph was perceived as easier to understand, but the preference was for the pictogram format. It is important to devise a visual method of health communication that considers the purpose of the information and characteristics of the target audience.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsHealth CommunicationHealth LiteracyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionTrustbar graphhealth literacypictogramreliabilityrisk perception

Identifiers

PMID35457556
PMCPMC9030082
OpenAlexW4224133234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.