How Time-Trend Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683241301702
Mohit M Sharma, Jessica S Ancker, Natalie C Benda, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
{"title":"How Time-Trend Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.","authors":"Mohit M Sharma, Jessica S Ancker, Natalie C Benda, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher","doi":"10.1177/23814683241301702","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> To develop guidance on the effects of format on communication of health probabilities, the Making Numbers Meaningful team conducted a systematic review. <b>Purpose.</b> This article (one of a series) covers research on time-trend tasks, in which participants evaluate stimuli for information about probability trends, such as changing chances of cancer recurrence over time. <b>Data Sources.</b> MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. <b>Study Selection.</b> We conducted independent dual screening to identify experimental or quasi-experimental research comparing 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to lay audiences. This article reports on 11 findings from 6 unique studies. <b>Data Extraction.</b> Independent dual extraction of information on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), task, and perceptual, affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. <b>Data Synthesis.</b> We identified research on the impact of format on the following outcomes: contrast, computation, effectiveness perceptions, health behaviors and behavioral intentions, discrimination, and preference. Strong evidence suggests that graphing probability curves over longer (rather than shorter) time periods increases perceived differences between curves (effectiveness perception outcome). Weak evidence suggested 1) survival versus mortality curves do not affect perceived differences between curves or ability to perform computations, 2) survival curves may help people identify the option with the highest survival, and 3) graphing probabilities over longer time periods may not affect the ability to identify the highest survival. <b>Limitations.</b> Granular data extraction and evidence syntheses lead to narrow conclusions rather than broader statements. <b>Conclusions.</b> The very limited evidence available about probability time-trend tasks is primarily about the effects of framing (survival v. mortality curves) and the effects of using shorter versus longer time periods.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>This systematic review found that few studies of probability trend data compared similar formats or used comparable outcome measures.The only strong piece of evidence was that graphing probabilities over longer time periods such that the distance between curves widens will tend to increase the perceived difference between the curves.Weak evidence suggests that survival curves (versus mortality curves) may make it easier to identify the option with the highest overall survival.Weak evidence suggests that graphing probabilities over longer (rather than shorter) time periods may increase the ability to distinguish between small survival differences.Evidence was insufficient to determine whether any format influenced behaviors or behavioral intentions.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"10 1","pages":"23814683241301702"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11848886/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241301702","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. To develop guidance on the effects of format on communication of health probabilities, the Making Numbers Meaningful team conducted a systematic review. Purpose. This article (one of a series) covers research on time-trend tasks, in which participants evaluate stimuli for information about probability trends, such as changing chances of cancer recurrence over time. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. Study Selection. We conducted independent dual screening to identify experimental or quasi-experimental research comparing 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to lay audiences. This article reports on 11 findings from 6 unique studies. Data Extraction. Independent dual extraction of information on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), task, and perceptual, affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. Data Synthesis. We identified research on the impact of format on the following outcomes: contrast, computation, effectiveness perceptions, health behaviors and behavioral intentions, discrimination, and preference. Strong evidence suggests that graphing probability curves over longer (rather than shorter) time periods increases perceived differences between curves (effectiveness perception outcome). Weak evidence suggested 1) survival versus mortality curves do not affect perceived differences between curves or ability to perform computations, 2) survival curves may help people identify the option with the highest survival, and 3) graphing probabilities over longer time periods may not affect the ability to identify the highest survival. Limitations. Granular data extraction and evidence syntheses lead to narrow conclusions rather than broader statements. Conclusions. The very limited evidence available about probability time-trend tasks is primarily about the effects of framing (survival v. mortality curves) and the effects of using shorter versus longer time periods.

Highlights: This systematic review found that few studies of probability trend data compared similar formats or used comparable outcome measures.The only strong piece of evidence was that graphing probabilities over longer time periods such that the distance between curves widens will tend to increase the perceived difference between the curves.Weak evidence suggests that survival curves (versus mortality curves) may make it easier to identify the option with the highest overall survival.Weak evidence suggests that graphing probabilities over longer (rather than shorter) time periods may increase the ability to distinguish between small survival differences.Evidence was insufficient to determine whether any format influenced behaviors or behavioral intentions.

时间趋势任务如何受到概率格式的影响:一个有意义的系统回顾。
背景。为了制定关于格式对健康概率传播影响的指导,使数字有意义小组进行了系统审查。目的。本文(系列文章之一)涵盖了对时间趋势任务的研究,在该任务中,参与者评估有关概率趋势信息的刺激,例如随时间变化的癌症复发机会。数据源。MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane图书馆、PsycINFO、ERIC、ACM数字图书馆;手工检索4种期刊。研究选择。我们进行了独立的双重筛选,以确定比较两种或更多形式向非专业受众提供定量健康信息的实验或准实验研究。本文报告了6项独特研究的11项发现。数据提取。对刺激(数据表示格式的数据)、任务和知觉、情感、认知和行为结果进行独立的双重信息提取。合成数据。我们确定了格式对以下结果影响的研究:对比、计算、有效性感知、健康行为和行为意图、歧视和偏好。强有力的证据表明,在较长的(而不是较短的)时间内绘制概率曲线会增加曲线之间的感知差异(有效性感知结果)。微弱的证据表明:1)生存与死亡曲线不会影响曲线之间的感知差异或进行计算的能力;2)生存曲线可能帮助人们确定生存率最高的选项;3)在较长时间内绘制概率图可能不会影响识别最高生存率的能力。的局限性。细粒度的数据提取和证据综合导致狭隘的结论,而不是更广泛的陈述。结论。关于概率时间趋势任务的证据非常有限,主要是关于框架(生存与死亡曲线)的影响以及使用较短与较长的时间周期的影响。重点:本系统综述发现,很少有关于概率趋势数据的研究比较类似的格式或使用可比较的结果测量。唯一有力的证据是,在较长时间内绘制概率图,这样曲线之间的距离变宽,往往会增加曲线之间的感知差异。微弱的证据表明,生存曲线(相对于死亡率曲线)可能更容易确定具有最高总生存率的选择。微弱的证据表明,绘制较长(而不是较短)时间内的概率图可能会提高区分微小生存差异的能力。证据不足以确定是否有任何形式影响行为或行为意图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信