How Difference Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: 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:10.1177/23814683241310242
Natalie C Benda, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Mohit M Sharma, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Jessica S Ancker
{"title":"How Difference Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.","authors":"Natalie C Benda, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Mohit M Sharma, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Jessica S Ancker","doi":"10.1177/23814683241310242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> To evaluate the effect of data presentation format on communication of health probabilities, the Making Numbers Meaningful team undertook a systematic review. <b>Purpose.</b> This article presents evidence about difference tasks, in which a reader examines information to evaluate differences between probabilities, such as the effect of a therapy on the chance of recurrence. This article covers the effect of format on 5 outcomes: 1) perceptions of or feelings about effectiveness, 2) behavioral intentions or behaviors, 3) trust, 4) preference for the format, and 5) discrimination. <b>Data Sources.</b> MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search. <b>Finding Selection.</b> Experimental/quasi-experimental studies comparing 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information. This article covers 205 findings from 101 unique studies reported in 84 articles. <b>Data Extraction.</b> Dual extraction of information on stimulus, task, and perceptual, affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. <b>Data Synthesis.</b> Evidence is moderate to strong that behavioral intention is affected more by relative differences than absolute ones, by numerator-only graphics than part-to-whole graphics, by messages with anecdotes than without, and by information about what others chose. Evidence is strong that perceived and felt effectiveness is affected more by relative differences than by absolute ones and more by numerator-only graphics rather than part-to-whole graphics. For graphic preferences, bar charts were preferred to icon arrays and graphics with data labels to graphics without. Other comparisons had weak or insufficient evidence. <b>Limitations.</b> The detailed approach to evidence syntheses provides narrowly targeted evidence rather than broad statements. <b>Conclusions.</b> Moderate to strong evidence can be derived on effects of probability difference format on behavioral intention, perceived or felt effectiveness, and preference for format.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Communicating relative risk differences as opposed to absolute risk differences, using numerator-only instead of part-to-whole graphics, and including anecdotes or information about others' decisions will all increase intentions to engage in a behavior.Relative risks (rather than absolute risk differences) and numerator-only graphics (rather than part-to-whole) will also increase felt and perceived effectiveness.To illustrate probability differences, people tend to prefer bar charts over icon arrays and graphics with labels over those without.All findings regarding the impact of different presentation formats for probability differences on trust produced insufficient evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"10 1","pages":"23814683241310242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11907595/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241310242","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 evaluate the effect of data presentation format on communication of health probabilities, the Making Numbers Meaningful team undertook a systematic review. Purpose. This article presents evidence about difference tasks, in which a reader examines information to evaluate differences between probabilities, such as the effect of a therapy on the chance of recurrence. This article covers the effect of format on 5 outcomes: 1) perceptions of or feelings about effectiveness, 2) behavioral intentions or behaviors, 3) trust, 4) preference for the format, and 5) discrimination. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search. Finding Selection. Experimental/quasi-experimental studies comparing 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information. This article covers 205 findings from 101 unique studies reported in 84 articles. Data Extraction. Dual extraction of information on stimulus, task, and perceptual, affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. Data Synthesis. Evidence is moderate to strong that behavioral intention is affected more by relative differences than absolute ones, by numerator-only graphics than part-to-whole graphics, by messages with anecdotes than without, and by information about what others chose. Evidence is strong that perceived and felt effectiveness is affected more by relative differences than by absolute ones and more by numerator-only graphics rather than part-to-whole graphics. For graphic preferences, bar charts were preferred to icon arrays and graphics with data labels to graphics without. Other comparisons had weak or insufficient evidence. Limitations. The detailed approach to evidence syntheses provides narrowly targeted evidence rather than broad statements. Conclusions. Moderate to strong evidence can be derived on effects of probability difference format on behavioral intention, perceived or felt effectiveness, and preference for format.

Highlights: Communicating relative risk differences as opposed to absolute risk differences, using numerator-only instead of part-to-whole graphics, and including anecdotes or information about others' decisions will all increase intentions to engage in a behavior.Relative risks (rather than absolute risk differences) and numerator-only graphics (rather than part-to-whole) will also increase felt and perceived effectiveness.To illustrate probability differences, people tend to prefer bar charts over icon arrays and graphics with labels over those without.All findings regarding the impact of different presentation formats for probability differences on trust produced insufficient evidence.

不同任务如何受到概率格式的影响,第2部分:使数字有意义的系统评价。
背景。为了评估数据呈现格式对健康概率传播的影响,“使数字有意义”团队进行了系统回顾。目的。这篇文章展示了关于不同任务的证据,读者通过检查信息来评估概率之间的差异,比如治疗对复发几率的影响。这篇文章涵盖了格式对5个结果的影响:1)对有效性的感知或感受,2)行为意图或行为,3)信任,4)对格式的偏好,5)歧视。数据源。MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane图书馆、PsycINFO、ERIC、ACM数字图书馆;手搜索。发现选择。比较两种或两种以上格式的定量健康信息的实验/准实验研究。本文涵盖了84篇文章中101项独特研究的205项发现。数据提取。刺激、任务、知觉、情感、认知和行为结果信息的双重提取。合成数据。有证据表明,相对差异比绝对差异对行为意图的影响更大,只有分子的图表比部分到整体的图表更受影响,有轶事的信息比没有轶事的信息更受影响,以及别人选择的信息更受影响。有强有力的证据表明,感知和感受到的有效性更多地受到相对差异而不是绝对差异的影响,更多地受到仅分子图形而不是部分到整体图形的影响。对于图形首选项,条形图优于图标数组,带数据标签的图形优于不带数据标签的图形。其他的比较证据薄弱或不充分。的局限性。证据综合的详细方法提供的是有针对性的证据,而不是宽泛的陈述。结论。概率差异格式对行为意向、感知或感觉有效性和格式偏好的影响可以得到中强证据。重点:传达相对风险差异而不是绝对风险差异,只使用分子而不是部分到整体的图形,并包含关于他人决策的轶事或信息,这些都将增加参与行为的意图。相对风险(而不是绝对风险差异)和仅分子图形(而不是部分到整体)也将增加感觉和感知的有效性。为了说明概率差异,人们倾向于喜欢柱状图而不是图标数组,喜欢有标签的图形而不是没有标签的图形。所有关于不同陈述格式对概率差异对信任的影响的研究结果都没有足够的证据。
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