Literature DB >> 15098049

What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials.

Jacquelyn Burkell1.   

Abstract

Much consumer health information addresses issues of disease risk or treatment risks and benefits, addressing questions such as "How effective is this treatment?" or "What is the likelihood that this test will give a false positive result?" Insofar as it addresses outcome likelihood, this information is essentially quantitative in nature, which is of critical importance, because quantitative information tends to be difficult to understand and therefore inaccessible to consumers. Information professionals typically examine reading level to determine the accessibility of consumer health information, but this measure does not adequately reflect the difficulty of quantitative information, including materials addressing issues of risk and benefit. As a result, different methods must be used to evaluate this type of consumer health material. There are no standard guidelines or assessment tools for this task, but research in cognitive psychology provides insight into the best ways to present risk and benefit information to promote understanding and minimize interpretation bias. This paper offers an interdisciplinary bridge that brings these results to the attention of information professionals, who can then use them to evaluate consumer health materials addressing risks and benefits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15098049      PMCID: PMC385301     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc        ISSN: 1536-5050


  30 in total

1.  Pictorial versus textual information and the ratio-bias effect.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Rudski; Jennifer Volksdorf
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2002-10

2.  How informed is consent? Understanding of pictorial and verbal probability information by medical inpatients.

Authors:  R Fuller; N Dudley; J Blacktop
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Interpretation of and preference for probability expressions among Japanese patients and physicians.

Authors:  Motoki Ohnishi; Tsuguya Fukui; Kunihiko Matsui; Kenji Hira; Masaya Shinozuka; Hironori Ezaki; Junji Otaki; Wataru Kurokawa; Hiroshi Imura; Hiroshi Koyama; Takuro Shimbo
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.267

Review 4.  Cancer: science and society and the communication of risk.

Authors:  K C Calman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-09-28

5.  Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences.

Authors:  U Hoffrage; G Gigerenzer
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 6.893

6.  Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment.

Authors:  V Denes-Raj; S Epstein
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1994-05

7.  Assessing values for health: numeracy matters.

Authors:  S Woloshin; L M Schwartz; M Moncur; S Gabriel; A N Tosteson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study.

Authors:  S Woloshin; L M Schwartz; S Byram; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care.

Authors:  M M Schapira; A B Nattinger; C A McHorney
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  The accuracy of patients' judgments of disease probability and test sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  R M Hamm; S L Smith
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 0.493

View more
  27 in total

1.  "What does this mean?" How Web-based consumer health information fails to support information seeking in the pursuit of informed consent for screening test decisions.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Burkell; D Grant Campbell
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2005-07

Review 2.  Assessing patient preferences for treatment options and process of care in inflammatory bowel disease: a critical review of quantitative data.

Authors:  Meenakshi Bewtra; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Developing informatics tools and strategies for consumer-centered health communication.

Authors:  Alla Keselman; Robert Logan; Catherine Arnott Smith; Gondy Leroy; Qing Zeng-Treitler
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics.

Authors:  Alan R Tait; Terri Voepel-Lewis; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2010-07

5.  Numeracy and framing bias in epilepsy.

Authors:  Hyunmi Choi; John B Wong; Anil Mendiratta; Gary A Heiman; Marla J Hamberger
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 2.937

6.  Presenting research risks and benefits to parents: does format matter?

Authors:  Alan R Tait; Terri Voepel-Lewis; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 7.  Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice.

Authors:  Wendy Nelson; Valerie F Reyna; Angela Fagerlin; Isaac Lipkus; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2008-08-02

Review 8.  How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Nathan F Dieckmann
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 17.737

9.  Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions.

Authors:  Sean Young; Daniel M Oppenheimer
Journal:  Psychol Health Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.423

10.  Informing the uninformed: optimizing the consent message using a fractional factorial design.

Authors:  Alan R Tait; Terri Voepel-Lewis; Vijayan N Nair; Naveen N Narisetty; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 16.193

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.