Literature DB >> 17524011

Men's interpretations of graphical information in a videotape decision aid.

Jan Pylar1, Celia E Wills, Janet Lillie, David R Rovner, Karen Kelly-Blake, Margaret Holmes-Rovner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine men's interpretations of graphical information types viewed in a high-quality, previously tested videotape decision aid (DA). SETTING, PARTICIPANTS,
DESIGN: A community-dwelling sample of men >50 years of age (N = 188) balanced by education (college/non-college) and race (Black/White) were interviewed just following their viewing of a videotape DA. A descriptive study design was used to examine men's interpretations of a representative sample of the types of graphs that were shown in the benign prostatic hyperplasia videotape DA. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Men provided their interpretation of graphs information presented in three formats that varied in complexity: pictograph, line and horizontal bar graph. Audiotape transcripts of men's responses were coded for meaning and content-related interpretation statements.
RESULTS: Men provided both meaning and content-focused interpretations of the graphs. Accuracy of interpretation was lower than hypothesized on the basis of literature review (85.4% for pictograph, 65.7% for line graph, 47.8% for horizontal bar graph). Accuracy for pictograph and line graphs was associated with education level, chi2(1) = 3.94, P = 0.047, and chi2(1) = 7.55, P = 0.006, respectively. Accuracy was uncorrelated with men's reported liking of the graphs, chi2(1) = 2.00, P = 0.441.
CONCLUSION: While men generally liked the DA, accuracy of graphs interpretation was associated with format complexity and education level. Graphs are often recommended to improve comprehension of information in DAs. However, additional evaluation is needed in experimental and naturalistic observational settings to develop best practice standards for data representation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17524011      PMCID: PMC5060389          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00443.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  21 in total

Review 1.  The visual communication of risk.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; J G Hollands
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1999

2.  Judgments of change and proportion in graphical perception.

Authors:  J G Hollands; I Spence
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.888

3.  Proximity compatibility and information display: effects of color, space, and object display on information integration.

Authors:  C D Wickens; A D Andre
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 2.888

Review 4.  Interventions to improve health outcomes for patients with low literacy. A systematic review.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Darren A DeWalt; Stacey Sheridan; Nancy Berkman; Kathleen N Lohr
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 5.  A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence.

Authors:  Lyndal J Trevena; Heather M Davey; Alexandra Barratt; Phyllis Butow; Patrina Caldwell
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  Perceptions of cancer fatalism among African Americans: the influence of education, income, and cancer knowledge.

Authors:  B D Powe
Journal:  J Natl Black Nurses Assoc       Date:  1994 Fall-Winter

7.  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

8.  Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making.

Authors:  Steven H Woolf; Evelyn C Y Chan; Russell Harris; Stacey L Sheridan; Clarence H Braddock; Robert M Kaplan; Alex Krist; Annette M O'Connor; Sean Tunis
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-08-16       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  Barriers to cancer screening.

Authors:  R J Womeodu; J E Bailey
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.456

10.  A componential model of human interaction with graphs: 1. Linear regression modeling.

Authors:  D J Gillan; R Lewis
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 2.888

View more
  2 in total

1.  Numeracy and communication with patients: they are counting on us.

Authors:  Andrea J Apter; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Janine T Remillard; Ian M Bennett; Elana Pearl Ben-Joseph; Rosanna M Batista; James Hyde; Rima E Rudd
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-02       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Why not? - Communicating stochastic information by use of unsorted frequency pictograms - a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jürgen Kasper; Christoph Heesen; Sascha Köpke; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Matthias Lenz
Journal:  Psychosoc Med       Date:  2011-11-02
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.