Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A 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:10.1177/23814683241255334
Jessica S Ancker, Natalie C Benda, Mohit M Sharma, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
{"title":"Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Jessica S Ancker, Natalie C Benda, Mohit M Sharma, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher","doi":"10.1177/23814683241255334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> The format in which probabilities are presented influences comprehension and interpretation. <b>Purpose.</b> To develop comprehensive evidence-based guidance about how to communicate probabilities in health and to identify strengths and weaknesses in the literature. This article presents methods for the review of <i>probability communication</i> and is accompanied by several results articles. <b>Data Sources.</b> MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. <b>Study Selection.</b> Two reviewers conducted screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or lay audiences. <b>Data Extraction.</b> In our conceptual framework, people make sense of a stimulus (data in a data presentation format) by performing cognitive tasks, resulting in perceptual, affective, cognitive, or behavioral responses measured as 1 of 14 distinct outcomes. The study team developed custom instruments to extract concepts, conduct risk-of-bias evaluation, and evaluate individual findings for credibility. <b>Data Synthesis.</b> Findings were grouped into tables by task and outcome for evidence synthesis. <b>Limitations.</b> Reviewer error could have led to missing relevant studies despite having 2 independent reviewers screening each article. The granular data extraction and syntheses slowed the work and may have made it less replicable. Credibility was evaluated by only 2 experts. <b>Conclusions.</b> After reviewing 26,793 titles and abstracts, we identified 316 articles about probability communication. Data extraction produced 1,119 individual findings, which were grouped into 37 evidence tables, each containing evidence on up to 10 data presentation format comparisons. The Making Numbers Meaningful project required novel methods for classifying and synthesizing research, which reveal patterns of strength and weakness in the probability communication literature.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>The Making Numbers Meaningful project conducted a comprehensive systematic review of experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or other lay audiences. The current article focuses on probability information.Based on a conceptual taxonomy, we reviewed studies based on the cognitive tasks required of participants, assessing 14 distinct possible outcomes.Our review identified 316 articles involving probability communications that generated 1,119 distinct research findings, each of which was reviewed by multiple experts for credibility.The overall pattern of findings highlights which probability communication questions have been well researched and which have not. For example, there has been far more research on communicating single probabilities than on communicating more complex information such as trends over time, and there has been a large amount of research on the effect of communication approaches on behavioral intentions but relatively little on behaviors.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"10 1","pages":"23814683241255334"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11848889/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241255334","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. The format in which probabilities are presented influences comprehension and interpretation. Purpose. To develop comprehensive evidence-based guidance about how to communicate probabilities in health and to identify strengths and weaknesses in the literature. This article presents methods for the review of probability communication and is accompanied by several results articles. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. Study Selection. Two reviewers conducted screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or lay audiences. Data Extraction. In our conceptual framework, people make sense of a stimulus (data in a data presentation format) by performing cognitive tasks, resulting in perceptual, affective, cognitive, or behavioral responses measured as 1 of 14 distinct outcomes. The study team developed custom instruments to extract concepts, conduct risk-of-bias evaluation, and evaluate individual findings for credibility. Data Synthesis. Findings were grouped into tables by task and outcome for evidence synthesis. Limitations. Reviewer error could have led to missing relevant studies despite having 2 independent reviewers screening each article. The granular data extraction and syntheses slowed the work and may have made it less replicable. Credibility was evaluated by only 2 experts. Conclusions. After reviewing 26,793 titles and abstracts, we identified 316 articles about probability communication. Data extraction produced 1,119 individual findings, which were grouped into 37 evidence tables, each containing evidence on up to 10 data presentation format comparisons. The Making Numbers Meaningful project required novel methods for classifying and synthesizing research, which reveal patterns of strength and weakness in the probability communication literature.

Highlights: The Making Numbers Meaningful project conducted a comprehensive systematic review of experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or other lay audiences. The current article focuses on probability information.Based on a conceptual taxonomy, we reviewed studies based on the cognitive tasks required of participants, assessing 14 distinct possible outcomes.Our review identified 316 articles involving probability communications that generated 1,119 distinct research findings, each of which was reviewed by multiple experts for credibility.The overall pattern of findings highlights which probability communication questions have been well researched and which have not. For example, there has been far more research on communicating single probabilities than on communicating more complex information such as trends over time, and there has been a large amount of research on the effect of communication approaches on behavioral intentions but relatively little on behaviors.

范围,方法和概述的结果,使数字有意义的证据审查沟通概率在健康:一个系统的审查。
背景。呈现概率的格式影响理解和解释。目的。制定全面的循证指导,指导如何传达卫生方面的可能性,并确定文献中的优缺点。本文提出了对概率通信进行审查的方法,并附有几篇结果文章。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。两位审稿人进行了筛选,以确定实验和准实验研究,这些研究比较了向患者或非专业受众提供定量健康信息的两种或更多格式。数据提取。在我们的概念框架中,人们通过执行认知任务来理解刺激(数据表示格式的数据),从而产生知觉、情感、认知或行为反应,这些反应被衡量为14种不同结果中的1种。研究小组开发了定制的工具来提取概念,进行偏倚风险评估,并评估个人发现的可信度。合成数据。研究结果按任务和结果分组成表,用于证据合成。的局限性。尽管每篇文章都有两个独立的审稿人筛选,审稿人的错误可能导致相关研究的遗漏。细粒度的数据提取和合成减慢了工作速度,并可能使其难以复制。可信性仅由2位专家评估。结论。在审查了26,793篇标题和摘要后,我们确定了316篇关于概率通信的文章。数据提取产生了1119个单独的发现,这些发现分为37个证据表,每个证据表包含多达10个数据呈现格式比较的证据。“使数字有意义”项目需要对研究进行分类和综合的新方法,这揭示了概率传播文献的优势和劣势模式。亮点:使数字有意义项目对实验和准实验研究进行了全面的系统回顾,比较了向患者或其他非专业受众呈现定量健康信息的两种或更多格式。本文的重点是概率信息。基于概念分类,我们回顾了基于参与者认知任务要求的研究,评估了14种不同的可能结果。我们的审查确定了316篇涉及概率通信的文章,这些文章产生了1119个不同的研究结果,每个研究结果都经过多位专家的可信度审查。调查结果的整体模式突出了哪些概率沟通问题得到了很好的研究,哪些没有。例如,关于传达单一概率的研究远远多于关于传达更复杂的信息(如随着时间的推移的趋势)的研究,关于沟通方法对行为意图的影响的研究大量,但对行为的研究相对较少。
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