15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A new graphical format to communicate treatment effects to patients—A web‐based randomized controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Patients making treatment decisions require understandable evidence‐based information. However, evidence on graphical presentation of benefits and side‐effects of medical treatments is not conclusive. The study evaluated a new space‐saving format, CLARIFIG (clarifying risk figures), aiming to facilitate accuracy of comprehension.

          Methods

          CLARIFIG displays groups of patients with and without treatment benefits as coloured sectors of a proportional bar graph representing in total 100 patients. Supplementary icons indicate the corresponding group's actual condition. The study used an application showing effects of immunotherapy intended to slow disease progression in multiple sclerosis ( MS). In a four‐arm web‐based randomized controlled trial, CLARIFIG was compared to the reference standard, multifigure pictographs ( MFP), regarding comprehension (primary outcome) and processing time. Both formats were presented as static and animated versions. People with MS were recruited through the website of the German MS society.

          Results

          Six hundred and eighty‐two patients were randomized and analysed for the primary end point. There were no differences in comprehension rates ( MFP static=46%, CLARIFIG static=44%; P=.59; MFP animated=23%, CLARIFIG animated=30%; P=.134). Processing time for CLARIFIG was shorter only in the animated version ( MFP static=162 seconds, CLARIFIG static=155 seconds; P=.653; MFP animated=286 seconds, CLARIFIG animated=189 seconds; P≤.001). However, both animated versions caused more wrong answers and longer processing time than static presentation ( MFP static vs animated: P≤.001/.001, CLARIFIG static vs animated: P=.027/.017).

          Conclusion

          Comprehension of the new format is comparable to MFP. CLARIFIG has the potential to simplify presentation in more complex contexts such as comparison of several treatment options in patient decision aids, but further studies are needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Animation: can it facilitate?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers

            Background Making evidence-based decisions often requires comparison of two or more options. Research-based evidence may exist which quantifies how likely the outcomes are for each option. Understanding these numeric estimates improves patients’ risk perception and leads to better informed decision making. This paper summarises current “best practices” in communication of evidence-based numeric outcomes for developers of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other health communication tools. Method An expert consensus group of fourteen researchers from North America, Europe, and Australasia identified eleven main issues in risk communication. Two experts for each issue wrote a “state of the art” summary of best evidence, drawing on the PtDA, health, psychological, and broader scientific literature. In addition, commonly used terms were defined and a set of guiding principles and key messages derived from the results. Results The eleven key components of risk communication were: 1) Presenting the chance an event will occur; 2) Presenting changes in numeric outcomes; 3) Outcome estimates for test and screening decisions; 4) Numeric estimates in context and with evaluative labels; 5) Conveying uncertainty; 6) Visual formats; 7) Tailoring estimates; 8) Formats for understanding outcomes over time; 9) Narrative methods for conveying the chance of an event; 10) Important skills for understanding numerical estimates; and 11) Interactive web-based formats. Guiding principles from the evidence summaries advise that risk communication formats should reflect the task required of the user, should always define a relevant reference class (i.e., denominator) over time, should aim to use a consistent format throughout documents, should avoid “1 in x” formats and variable denominators, consider the magnitude of numbers used and the possibility of format bias, and should take into account the numeracy and graph literacy of the audience. Conclusion A substantial and rapidly expanding evidence base exists for risk communication. Developers of tools to facilitate evidence-based decision making should apply these principles to improve the quality of risk communication in practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices.

              To evaluate the ability of six graph formats to impart knowledge about treatment risks/benefits to low and high numeracy individuals. Participants were randomized to receive numerical information about the risks and benefits of a hypothetical medical treatment in one of six graph formats. Each described the benefits of taking one of two drugs, as well as the risks of experiencing side effects. Main outcome variables were verbatim (specific numerical) and gist (general impression) knowledge. Participants were also asked to rate their perceptions of the graphical format and to choose a treatment. 2412 participants completed the survey. Viewing a pictograph was associated with adequate levels of both types of knowledge, especially for lower numeracy individuals. Viewing tables was associated with a higher likelihood of having adequate verbatim knowledge vs. other formats (p<0.001) but lower likelihood of having adequate gist knowledge (p<0.05). All formats were positively received, but pictograph was trusted by both high and low numeracy respondents. Verbatim and gist knowledge were significantly (p<0.01) associated with making a medically superior treatment choice. Pictographs are the best format for communicating probabilistic information to patients in shared decision making environments, particularly among lower numeracy individuals. Providers can consider using pictographs to communicate risk and benefit information to patients of different numeracy levels.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                juergen.kasper@uit.no
                Journal
                Health Expect
                Health Expect
                10.1111/(ISSN)1369-7625
                HEX
                Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1369-6513
                1369-7625
                16 December 2016
                August 2017
                : 20
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/hex.2017.20.issue-4 )
                : 797-804
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Health and Caring Sciences Faculty of Health Sciences The Arctic University of Norway Tromsø Norway
                [ 2 ] Division of Internal Medicine University Hospital of Northern Norway Tromsø Norway
                [ 3 ] Unit of Health Sciences and Education MIN Faculty University of Hamburg Hamburg Germany
                [ 4 ] Institute on Didactics in Medicine Michelstadt Germany
                [ 5 ] Department of Neurology Institute for Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis University Medical Center Hamburg‐Eppendorf Hamburg Germany
                [ 6 ] Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology University of Lübeck Lübeck Germany
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Jürgen Kasper, Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.

                Email: juergen.kasper@ 123456uit.no

                Article
                HEX12522
                10.1111/hex.12522
                5513016
                27981688
                ed1ea4a6-0ecd-414c-ab6d-385521e2f335
                © 2016 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 29 October 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, Pages: 8, Words: 5668
                Funding
                Funded by: German Ministry of Education and Research
                Funded by: National MS Society (USA)
                Categories
                Original Research Paper
                Original Research Papers
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                hex12522
                August 2017
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.1.4 mode:remove_FC converted:17.07.2017

                Health & Social care
                evidence based medicine,medical decision making,multiple sclerosis,patient education,patient preference

                Comments

                Comment on this article