ArticleMDM policy & practice
Comprehensibility of Fact Sheets Addressing Benefits and Risks of Preventive Interventions: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation Study.
Article in MDM policy & practice. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preventive tests and procedures (PTPs) help to reduce disease burden. However, patient expectations often differ from current guidelines, resulting in overuse or underuse of PTPs. Shared decision making can bridge this gap but requires clear, evidence-based information. This study aimed to develop and conduct an initial evaluation of prototype fact sheets designed to support informed decisions about PTPs. Methods: We selected 11 PTPs based on their potential for over- or underuse. For each, we developed a fact sheet following guideline recommendations. These summarised key benefits, risks and relevance using verbal, numerical and graphical formats. User experience and comprehensibility were assessed through a survey among a university population. Participants rated comprehensibility, content and design on a 5-point scale. Approval was defined as the proportion of 'very good' or 'rather good' ratings. Participants giving poor ratings were invited to provide free-text comments. Subgroup analyses were performed by age and educational level. Results: A total of 2,082 individuals answered all relevant questions to fact sheets. The median fact sheet approval score was 77% (interquartile range: 55%, 91%). Six of the 11 fact sheets received an approval of greater than 80% for comprehensibility in general. Lower approval was reported for risk descriptions, usefulness in doctor-patient conversations and visuals. Cancer screening sheets scored the lowest. Subgroup analyses showed lower approval in younger age groups and among individuals with higher levels of education. Conclusions: Initial user testing of the fact sheets showed generally positive ratings regarding comprehensibility and user experience. However, the presentation of specific risks and the use of visuals needed to be adapted, especially for cancer-related topics. The findings highlighted the importance of tailoring informational materials to effectively support shared decision making.
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.