ArticlePEC innovation2023
Improving patient understanding of prenatal screening tests: Using naturally sampled frequencies, pictures, and accounting for individual differences.
Article in PEC innovation, 2023. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Health professionals must communicate prenatal screening test results effectively to patients, but these tests involve very low prevalence and high false positive risks; a situation known to be difficult for people to understand. Methods: The present experiments evaluated the effectiveness of presenting prenatal screening test results for Trisomy 21, Trisomy 13, or DiGeorge Syndrome, using either naturally sampled frequencies or standard percentages. Participants were given a task of interpreting the posterior probability of an embryo having the condition. Results: People were significantly better with naturally sampled frequencies. Numerical literacy and visuospatial ability significantly accounted for individual differences in performance within conditions. Participants nevertheless did not differ in ratings of how useful the different presentation formats were, suggesting a lack of awareness of how format influenced understanding. These results held regardless of whether the respondents were undergraduates (Experiment 1) or members of the general population recruited online (Experiment 2). Conclusion: Using naturally sampled frequencies improves patient understanding of prenatal screening tests results, with low cost of implementation. Innovation: Using realistic prenatal screening test results, these results show how to improve patient counseling via the use of naturally sampled frequencies.
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.