Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36516153›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Randomized controlled trial: Quantifying the impact of disclosing uncertainty on adherence to hypothetical health recommendations.

Hannah Mendoza, Lucy D'Agostino McGowan

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 76% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hannah MendozaDepartment Statistical Sciences, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3996-7257
Lucy D'Agostino McGowanDepartment Statistical Sciences, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7297-9359
Wake Forest University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess whether disclosing elements of uncertainty in an initial public health statement will change the likelihood that participants will accept new, different advice that arises as more evidence is uncovered. Proportional odds models were fit, stratified by the baseline likelihood to agree with the final advice. 298 participants were randomized to the treatment arm and 298 in the control arm. Among participants who were more likely to agree with the final recommendation at baseline, those who were initially shown uncertainty had a 46% lower odds of being more likely to agree with the final recommendation compared to those who were not (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.27-1.03). Among participants who were less likely to agree with the final recommendation at baseline, those who were initially shown uncertainty have 1.61 times the odds of being more likely to agree with the final recommendation compared to those who were not (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.15-2.25). This has implications for public health leaders when assessing how to communicate a recommendation, suggesting communicating uncertainty influences whether someone will adhere to a future recommendation.

Indexed as

UncertaintyHumans

Identifiers

PMID36516153
PMCPMC9749967
OpenAlexW4311441735

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.