ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2024
How to present economic evaluations to non-technical audiences? Randomized trials with professionals and the general population.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCost-effectiveness analyses of health technologies have become a part of the decision-making process in healthcare policies. Nevertheless, economic results are not always presented in comprehensible formats for non-technical audiences, such as the general population, healthcare professionals or decision-makers. The purpose of this study was to observe which formats best convey the key message of an economic evaluation, and which are best received by two different audiences.
methodsThe summary of a hypothetical cost-effectiveness analysis was edited in different formats: infographic, plain language text and video-abstract for the general population; executive summary and policy brief for a specialized population, i.e. clinicians, clinical and non-clinical managers, or methodologists in health-technology assessment. Participants were randomly shown one of the formats, and data on objective and subjective comprehension, and perceived usefulness/acceptability were gathered by means of online questionnaires. Statistical differences between formats within each audience were analysed.
resultsIn the general population (N = 324), objective comprehension was statistically significantly better for infographic than for video-abstract (p = 0.005), and for plain text than for video-abstract (p = 0.024). There were no differences in subjective comprehension, but video-abstract was considered statistically significantly more useful to understand the information than plain text (p = 0.011). In the specialized population (N = 100), no statistically significant differences were observed for objective and subjective comprehension, although policy brief was perceived as statistically significantly more useful than executive summary (p = 0.005).
conclusionsA balance between effectivity of conveying the message and attractivity of the format needs to be sought, to facilitate non-technical audiences' understanding of economic data and, consequently, perceive decision-making processes as more transparent and legitimate. The infographic and policy brief could be robust ways to present economic data to the general public and specialized audience, respectively.
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.