The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: a randomized experimental study
- PMID: 22074912
- DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11424926
The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: a randomized experimental study
Abstract
Objective: To test optimal graphic risk communication formats for presenting small probabilities using graphics with a denominator of 1000 to adults with lower education and literacy.
Methods: A randomized experimental study, which took place in adult basic education classes in Sydney, Australia. The participants were 120 adults with lower education and literacy. An experimental computer-based manipulation compared 1) pictographs in 2 forms, shaded "blocks" and unshaded "dots"; and 2) bar charts across different orientations (horizontal/vertical) and numerator size (small <100, medium 100-499, large 500-999). Accuracy (size of error) and ease of processing (reaction time) were assessed on a gist task (estimating the larger chance of survival) and a verbatim task (estimating the size of difference). Preferences for different graph types were also assessed.
Results: Accuracy on the gist task was very high across all conditions (>95%) and not tested further. For the verbatim task, optimal graph type depended on the numerator size. For small numerators, pictographs resulted in fewer errors than bar charts (blocks: odds ratio [OR] = 0.047, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.023-0.098; dots: OR = 0.049, 95% CI = 0.024-0.099). For medium and large numerators, bar charts were more accurate (e.g., medium dots: OR = 4.29, 95% CI = 2.9-6.35). Pictographs were generally processed faster for small numerators (e.g., blocks: 14.9 seconds v. bars: 16.2 seconds) and bar charts for medium or large numerators (e.g., large blocks: 41.6 seconds v. 26.7 seconds). Vertical formats were processed slightly faster than horizontal graphs with no difference in accuracy. Most participants preferred bar charts (64%); however, there was no relationship with performance.
Conclusions: For adults with low education and literacy, pictographs are likely to be the best format to use when displaying small numerators (<100/1000) and bar charts for larger numerators (>100/1000).
Similar articles
-
Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-Accuracy, comprehension and preferences.Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Dec;69(1-3):121-8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.006. Epub 2007 Oct 1. Patient Educ Couns. 2007. PMID: 17905553
-
The impact of numeracy on verbatim knowledge of the longitudinal risk for prostate cancer recurrence following radiation therapy.Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):27-36. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14551639. Epub 2014 Oct 2. Med Decis Making. 2015. PMID: 25277673 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Does Animation Improve Comprehension of Risk Information in Patients with Low Health Literacy? A Randomized Trial.Med Decis Making. 2020 Jan;40(1):17-28. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19890296. Epub 2019 Dec 3. Med Decis Making. 2020. PMID: 31795820 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Impact of format and content of visual display of data on comprehension, choice and preference: a systematic review.Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Feb;24(1):55-64. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzr072. Epub 2011 Dec 13. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012. PMID: 22166856 Review.
-
Using visual aids to improve communication of risks about health: a review.ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:562637. doi: 10.1100/2012/562637. Epub 2012 May 2. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012. PMID: 22629146 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Evaluation of modified risk claim advertising formats for Camel Snus.Health Educ J. 2017 Dec;76(8):971-985. doi: 10.1177/0017896917729723. Epub 2017 Sep 20. Health Educ J. 2017. PMID: 38974785 Free PMC article.
-
The Lure of Beauty: People Select Representations of Statistical Information Largely Based on Attractiveness, Not Comprehensibility.Med Decis Making. 2023 Oct-Nov;43(7-8):774-788. doi: 10.1177/0272989X231201579. Epub 2023 Oct 23. Med Decis Making. 2023. PMID: 37872798 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences.Med Decis Making. 2023 Oct-Nov;43(7-8):803-820. doi: 10.1177/0272989X231202505. Epub 2023 Oct 16. Med Decis Making. 2023. PMID: 37842816 Free PMC article.
-
Do you want to promote recall, perceptions, or behavior? The best data visualization depends on the communication goal.J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024 Jan 18;31(2):525-530. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocad137. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024. PMID: 37468448 Free PMC article.
-
Community engagement in the development of health-related data visualizations: a scoping review.J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024 Jan 18;31(2):479-487. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocad090. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024. PMID: 37279890 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
