Trial reportPloS one2022
Randomized controlled trial: Quantifying the impact of disclosing uncertainty on adherence to hypothetical health recommendations.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.