概率格式如何影响差异任务,第 1 部分:让数字有意义》系统回顾。

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683241294077
Natalie C Benda, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Mohit M Sharma, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Jessica S Ancker
{"title":"概率格式如何影响差异任务,第 1 部分:让数字有意义》系统回顾。","authors":"Natalie C Benda, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Mohit M Sharma, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Jessica S Ancker","doi":"10.1177/23814683241294077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> To develop guidance on the effect of data presentation format on communication of health probabilities, the Making Numbers Meaningful project undertook a systematic review. <b>Purpose.</b> This article, one in a series, covers evidence about \"difference tasks,\" in which a reader examines a stimulus to evaluate differences between probabilities, such as the effect of a risk factor or therapy on the chance of a disease. This article covers the effect of format on 4 outcomes: 1) identifying a probability difference (identification) or recalling it (recall), 2) identifying the largest or smallest of a set of probability differences (contrast outcome), 3) placing a probability difference into a category such as \"elevated\" or \"below average\" (categorization outcome), and 4) performing computations (computation outcome). <b>Data Sources.</b> MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. <b>Finding Selection.</b> Pairwise screening to identify experimental/quasi-experimental research comparing 2 or more formats for quantitative health information. This article reports on 53 findings derived from 35 unique studies reported in 32 papers. <b>Data Extraction.</b> Pairwise extraction of information on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), cognitive task, and perceptual, affective, cognitive, or behavioral outcomes. <b>Data Synthesis.</b> Most evidence involving outcomes of difference-level cognitive tasks was weak or insufficient. Evidence was strong that 1) computations involving differences are easier with rates per 10<sup>n</sup> than with percentages or 1 in X rates and 2) adding graphics to numbers makes it easier to perform difference-level computations. <b>Limitations.</b> A granular level of evidence syntheses leads to narrow guidance rather than broad statements. <b>Conclusions.</b> Although many studies examined differences between probabilities, few were comparable enough to generate strong evidence.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Most evidence about the effect of format on ability to evaluate differences in probabilities was weak or insufficient because of too few comparable studies.Strong evidence showed that computations relevant to differences in probabilities are easier with rates per 10<sup>n</sup> than with 1 in X rates.Adding graphics to probabilities helps readers compute differences between probabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"10 1","pages":"23814683241294077"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11848882/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Difference Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: 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\":\"10.1177/23814683241294077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background.</b> To develop guidance on the effect of data presentation format on communication of health probabilities, the Making Numbers Meaningful project undertook a systematic review. <b>Purpose.</b> This article, one in a series, covers evidence about \\\"difference tasks,\\\" in which a reader examines a stimulus to evaluate differences between probabilities, such as the effect of a risk factor or therapy on the chance of a disease. This article covers the effect of format on 4 outcomes: 1) identifying a probability difference (identification) or recalling it (recall), 2) identifying the largest or smallest of a set of probability differences (contrast outcome), 3) placing a probability difference into a category such as \\\"elevated\\\" or \\\"below average\\\" (categorization outcome), and 4) performing computations (computation outcome). <b>Data Sources.</b> MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. <b>Finding Selection.</b> Pairwise screening to identify experimental/quasi-experimental research comparing 2 or more formats for quantitative health information. This article reports on 53 findings derived from 35 unique studies reported in 32 papers. <b>Data Extraction.</b> Pairwise extraction of information on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), cognitive task, and perceptual, affective, cognitive, or behavioral outcomes. <b>Data Synthesis.</b> Most evidence involving outcomes of difference-level cognitive tasks was weak or insufficient. Evidence was strong that 1) computations involving differences are easier with rates per 10<sup>n</sup> than with percentages or 1 in X rates and 2) adding graphics to numbers makes it easier to perform difference-level computations. <b>Limitations.</b> A granular level of evidence syntheses leads to narrow guidance rather than broad statements. <b>Conclusions.</b> Although many studies examined differences between probabilities, few were comparable enough to generate strong evidence.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Most evidence about the effect of format on ability to evaluate differences in probabilities was weak or insufficient because of too few comparable studies.Strong evidence showed that computations relevant to differences in probabilities are easier with rates per 10<sup>n</sup> than with 1 in X rates.Adding graphics to probabilities helps readers compute differences between probabilities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"23814683241294077\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11848882/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241294077\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241294077","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

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Difference Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.

Background. To develop guidance on the effect of data presentation format on communication of health probabilities, the Making Numbers Meaningful project undertook a systematic review. Purpose. This article, one in a series, covers evidence about "difference tasks," in which a reader examines a stimulus to evaluate differences between probabilities, such as the effect of a risk factor or therapy on the chance of a disease. This article covers the effect of format on 4 outcomes: 1) identifying a probability difference (identification) or recalling it (recall), 2) identifying the largest or smallest of a set of probability differences (contrast outcome), 3) placing a probability difference into a category such as "elevated" or "below average" (categorization outcome), and 4) performing computations (computation outcome). Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. Finding Selection. Pairwise screening to identify experimental/quasi-experimental research comparing 2 or more formats for quantitative health information. This article reports on 53 findings derived from 35 unique studies reported in 32 papers. Data Extraction. Pairwise extraction of information on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), cognitive task, and perceptual, affective, cognitive, or behavioral outcomes. Data Synthesis. Most evidence involving outcomes of difference-level cognitive tasks was weak or insufficient. Evidence was strong that 1) computations involving differences are easier with rates per 10n than with percentages or 1 in X rates and 2) adding graphics to numbers makes it easier to perform difference-level computations. Limitations. A granular level of evidence syntheses leads to narrow guidance rather than broad statements. Conclusions. Although many studies examined differences between probabilities, few were comparable enough to generate strong evidence.

Highlights: Most evidence about the effect of format on ability to evaluate differences in probabilities was weak or insufficient because of too few comparable studies.Strong evidence showed that computations relevant to differences in probabilities are easier with rates per 10n than with 1 in X rates.Adding graphics to probabilities helps readers compute differences between probabilities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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