图表展示对日本成年人理解医疗风险和益处的影响

H. Danya, Y. Yonekura, K. Nakayama
{"title":"图表展示对日本成年人理解医疗风险和益处的影响","authors":"H. Danya, Y. Yonekura, K. Nakayama","doi":"10.1080/2331205X.2021.1907894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify the method of presentation (text, bar graphs, or pictographs) that best enhances the understanding of medical risk information among Japanese adults. We also investigated the effect of graphic format on understanding by differences in numeracy. This is the first study conducted in Japan to clarify understanding the risks and benefits of treatment. Participants were randomized to receive numerical information about the risks and benefits of a hypothetical medical treatment in one of three formats: text, bar graphs, or pictographs. The main outcome variables were adequate verbatim and adequate gist understanding. In total, 1062 individuals (text, 354; bar graphs, 358; and pictographs 350) were included in the analysis. Pictographs and bar graphs did not show significant differences from text in conferring verbatim information. However, pictographs significantly differed from text in conferring gist information (odds ratio [OR] 1.567, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.097–2.237), but bar graphs did not significantly differ from text (OR 1.390, 95%CI 0.983–1.964). Numeracy was the factor most strongly associated with adequate verbatim and gist understanding. Our results suggest that although pictographs appear to be an effective option, their effectiveness is limited to people with higher numeracy and people with lower numeracy may have little benefit from pictographs.","PeriodicalId":10470,"journal":{"name":"Cogent Medicine","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of graphic presentation on understanding medical risks and benefits among Japanese adults\",\"authors\":\"H. Danya, Y. Yonekura, K. Nakayama\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2331205X.2021.1907894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify the method of presentation (text, bar graphs, or pictographs) that best enhances the understanding of medical risk information among Japanese adults. We also investigated the effect of graphic format on understanding by differences in numeracy. This is the first study conducted in Japan to clarify understanding the risks and benefits of treatment. Participants were randomized to receive numerical information about the risks and benefits of a hypothetical medical treatment in one of three formats: text, bar graphs, or pictographs. The main outcome variables were adequate verbatim and adequate gist understanding. In total, 1062 individuals (text, 354; bar graphs, 358; and pictographs 350) were included in the analysis. Pictographs and bar graphs did not show significant differences from text in conferring verbatim information. However, pictographs significantly differed from text in conferring gist information (odds ratio [OR] 1.567, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.097–2.237), but bar graphs did not significantly differ from text (OR 1.390, 95%CI 0.983–1.964). Numeracy was the factor most strongly associated with adequate verbatim and gist understanding. Our results suggest that although pictographs appear to be an effective option, their effectiveness is limited to people with higher numeracy and people with lower numeracy may have little benefit from pictographs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10470,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cogent Medicine\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cogent Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2331205X.2021.1907894\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cogent Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2331205X.2021.1907894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要:本研究的目的是确定最能提高日本成年人对医疗风险信息理解的呈现方法(文本、条形图或象形文字)。我们还通过计算能力的差异研究了图形格式对理解的影响。这是首次在日本进行的研究,旨在明确了解治疗的风险和益处。参与者被随机分配,以文本、条形图或象形文字三种格式之一接收关于假设医疗的风险和益处的数字信息。主要的结果变量是足够的逐字和足够的要点理解。总共有1062人(文本,354人;条形图,358;象形文字(350)也被纳入了分析。象形文字和条形图在提供逐字信息方面与文字没有显著差异。然而,象形文字在提供主旨信息方面与文字有显著差异(比值比[OR] 1.567, 95%可信区间[CI] 1.097-2.237),但柱状图与文字无显著差异(OR 1.390, 95%CI 0.983-1.964)。计算能力是与足够的逐字和主旨理解最密切相关的因素。我们的研究结果表明,尽管象形文字似乎是一种有效的选择,但它们的有效性仅限于计算能力较强的人,而计算能力较弱的人可能很少从象形文字中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of graphic presentation on understanding medical risks and benefits among Japanese adults
Abstract Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify the method of presentation (text, bar graphs, or pictographs) that best enhances the understanding of medical risk information among Japanese adults. We also investigated the effect of graphic format on understanding by differences in numeracy. This is the first study conducted in Japan to clarify understanding the risks and benefits of treatment. Participants were randomized to receive numerical information about the risks and benefits of a hypothetical medical treatment in one of three formats: text, bar graphs, or pictographs. The main outcome variables were adequate verbatim and adequate gist understanding. In total, 1062 individuals (text, 354; bar graphs, 358; and pictographs 350) were included in the analysis. Pictographs and bar graphs did not show significant differences from text in conferring verbatim information. However, pictographs significantly differed from text in conferring gist information (odds ratio [OR] 1.567, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.097–2.237), but bar graphs did not significantly differ from text (OR 1.390, 95%CI 0.983–1.964). Numeracy was the factor most strongly associated with adequate verbatim and gist understanding. Our results suggest that although pictographs appear to be an effective option, their effectiveness is limited to people with higher numeracy and people with lower numeracy may have little benefit from pictographs.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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