ArticleResearch in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP2024
Laypersons' understanding of statistical concepts commonly used in prescription drug promotion: A review of the research literature.
Article in Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising for prescription drugs has led to concerns about how consumers interpret the medical information conveyed in these ads. One strategy for improving lay understanding of medical information involves incorporating quantitative information about a treatment's potential benefits and risks.
objectiveThis literature review investigates laypersons' interpretations of statistical concepts, expanding on past reviews and including terms that may be used in DTC prescription drug advertising.
methodsWe searched six databases for articles published from January 2000 to October 2021. Articles were included if they were in English and examined general or lay audiences' comprehension of quantitative or statistical concepts, without limiting the context of the studies to medical situations.
resultsWe identified 25 eligible articles. The evidence suggests that likelihood ratios, odds ratios, probabilities, numbers needed to treat/harm, and confidence intervals hinder comprehension of quantitative information. The results are mixed for information presented as frequencies, percentages, absolute risk reduction, and relative risk reduction. The mixed findings could be due to numeracy, framing as risks or benefits, and operationalization of the outcomes. We found no studies examining interpretations of minimum, maximum, central tendency, power, statistical significance, or hazard ratio.
conclusionStudies spanning several decades have examined how laypeople interpret statistical concepts. While a few terms are consistently studied, many questions still remain on how to make risk information more understandable to lay audiences, particularly those with low numeracy.
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.