点(单概率)任务如何受到概率格式的影响,第1部分:使数字有意义的系统回顾。

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683241255333
Jessica S Ancker, Natalie C Benda, Mohit M Sharma, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
{"title":"点(单概率)任务如何受到概率格式的影响,第1部分:使数字有意义的系统回顾。","authors":"Jessica S Ancker, Natalie C Benda, Mohit M Sharma, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher","doi":"10.1177/23814683241255333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> To create guidance on the effect of data presentation format on communication of health numbers, the Making Numbers Meaningful project undertook a systematic review. <b>Purpose.</b> This article (one of a series) covers research studying so-called \"point tasks,\" in which a reader examines stimuli to obtain information about single probabilities. The current article presents the evidence on the effects of data presentation format on multiple outcomes: identification and recall, contrast, categorization, and computation. <b>Data Sources.</b> MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. <b>Finding Selection.</b> Manual pairwise screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research comparing 2 or more formats for quantitative health information for patients or other lay audiences. This article reports on 218 findings from 99 articles on single probability communication. <b>Data Extraction.</b> Pairwise extraction of data on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), task, and perceptual/affective/cognitive/behavioral outcomes. <b>Data Synthesis.</b> Most evidence on these outcomes was weak or insufficient. There was moderate to strong evidence that 1) recall was better with icon arrays with human figures than icon arrays with blocks, 2) survival curves make it easier to identify points of highest survival than mortality curves (contrast outcome), 3) adding an average population probability to a message about an individual probability may not affect recall, 4) computation performance is better with bar charts combined with data labels than with either numbers or graphics alone, 5) computation performance with rates is better when denominators match, and 6) framing strongly affects risky choices (contrast). <b>Limitations.</b> Heterogeneous study designs reduced the ability to develop strong evidence. <b>Conclusions.</b> Few findings assessing identification or recall, contrast, categorization, or computation outcomes for point tasks were comparable enough to each other to generate strong evidence.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Many researchers have studied the effects of data presentation formats of single probabilities on different outcomes.However, few findings are comparable enough to allow for strong evidence-based conclusions about the impact on identification, recall, contrast, categorization, and computation outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"10 1","pages":"23814683241255333"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11848880/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica S Ancker, Natalie C Benda, Mohit M Sharma, Stephen B Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23814683241255333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background.</b> To create guidance on the effect of data presentation format on communication of health numbers, the Making Numbers Meaningful project undertook a systematic review. <b>Purpose.</b> This article (one of a series) covers research studying so-called \\\"point tasks,\\\" in which a reader examines stimuli to obtain information about single probabilities. The current article presents the evidence on the effects of data presentation format on multiple outcomes: identification and recall, contrast, categorization, and computation. <b>Data Sources.</b> MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. <b>Finding Selection.</b> Manual pairwise screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research comparing 2 or more formats for quantitative health information for patients or other lay audiences. This article reports on 218 findings from 99 articles on single probability communication. <b>Data Extraction.</b> Pairwise extraction of data on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), task, and perceptual/affective/cognitive/behavioral outcomes. <b>Data Synthesis.</b> Most evidence on these outcomes was weak or insufficient. There was moderate to strong evidence that 1) recall was better with icon arrays with human figures than icon arrays with blocks, 2) survival curves make it easier to identify points of highest survival than mortality curves (contrast outcome), 3) adding an average population probability to a message about an individual probability may not affect recall, 4) computation performance is better with bar charts combined with data labels than with either numbers or graphics alone, 5) computation performance with rates is better when denominators match, and 6) framing strongly affects risky choices (contrast). <b>Limitations.</b> Heterogeneous study designs reduced the ability to develop strong evidence. <b>Conclusions.</b> Few findings assessing identification or recall, contrast, categorization, or computation outcomes for point tasks were comparable enough to each other to generate strong evidence.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Many researchers have studied the effects of data presentation formats of single probabilities on different outcomes.However, few findings are comparable enough to allow for strong evidence-based conclusions about the impact on identification, recall, contrast, categorization, and computation outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"23814683241255333\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11848880/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241255333\",\"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/10.1177/23814683241255333","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

背景。为了创建关于数据表示格式对健康数字交流影响的指导,“使数字有意义”项目进行了系统审查。目的。本文(系列文章之一)涵盖了对所谓的“点任务”的研究,在这种任务中,读者通过检查刺激来获得关于单个概率的信息。本文提出了数据表示格式对多个结果的影响的证据:识别和召回、对比、分类和计算。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。发现选择。手动两两筛选,以确定实验和准实验研究,比较两种或更多格式的定量健康信息,为患者或其他非专业观众。本文报告了99篇关于单概率通信的文章中的218个发现。数据提取。两两抽取刺激(数据表示格式的数据)、任务和知觉/情感/认知/行为结果的数据。合成数据。大多数关于这些结果的证据都很薄弱或不充分。有中等到强烈的证据表明:1)带有人物图形的图标阵列比带有块的图标阵列的召回更好;2)生存曲线比死亡率曲线更容易识别最高存活率的点(对比结果);3)在关于个体概率的信息中添加平均总体概率可能不会影响召回;4)与数据标签相结合的条形图比单独使用数字或图形的计算性能更好。5)当分母匹配时,具有速率的计算性能更好;6)框架强烈影响风险选择(对比)。的局限性。异质研究设计降低了形成有力证据的能力。结论。评估点任务的识别或回忆、对比、分类或计算结果的研究结果很少有足够的可比性来产生强有力的证据。许多研究者研究了单一概率的数据表示格式对不同结果的影响。然而,很少有研究结果具有足够的可比性,可以对识别、召回、对比、分类和计算结果的影响得出强有力的循证结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.

Background. To create guidance on the effect of data presentation format on communication of health numbers, the Making Numbers Meaningful project undertook a systematic review. Purpose. This article (one of a series) covers research studying so-called "point tasks," in which a reader examines stimuli to obtain information about single probabilities. The current article presents the evidence on the effects of data presentation format on multiple outcomes: identification and recall, contrast, categorization, and computation. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. Finding Selection. Manual pairwise screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research comparing 2 or more formats for quantitative health information for patients or other lay audiences. This article reports on 218 findings from 99 articles on single probability communication. Data Extraction. Pairwise extraction of data on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), task, and perceptual/affective/cognitive/behavioral outcomes. Data Synthesis. Most evidence on these outcomes was weak or insufficient. There was moderate to strong evidence that 1) recall was better with icon arrays with human figures than icon arrays with blocks, 2) survival curves make it easier to identify points of highest survival than mortality curves (contrast outcome), 3) adding an average population probability to a message about an individual probability may not affect recall, 4) computation performance is better with bar charts combined with data labels than with either numbers or graphics alone, 5) computation performance with rates is better when denominators match, and 6) framing strongly affects risky choices (contrast). Limitations. Heterogeneous study designs reduced the ability to develop strong evidence. Conclusions. Few findings assessing identification or recall, contrast, categorization, or computation outcomes for point tasks were comparable enough to each other to generate strong evidence.

Highlights: Many researchers have studied the effects of data presentation formats of single probabilities on different outcomes.However, few findings are comparable enough to allow for strong evidence-based conclusions about the impact on identification, recall, contrast, categorization, and computation outcomes.

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