Literature DB >> 17998085

Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial.

Elie A Akl1, Nancy Maroun, Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Gunn E Vist, P J Devereaux, Victor M Montori, Holger J Schünemann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare health care consumers' understanding, evaluations, and preferences for symbols vs. numbers and letters for the representation of strength of recommendations (SOR) and quality of evidence (QOE). STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Questionnaire study in a randomized controlled design in the setting of a community health education program.
RESULTS: Eighty-four participants completed the questionnaire. For the presentation of the SOR, participants had better objective understanding of symbols than numbers (74% vs. 14%, P<0.001). They also scored symbols positively, and numbers negatively for ease of understanding (mean difference [md]=1.5, P=0.001), clearness and conciseness (md=1.5, P<0.001), and conveyance of the degree of uncertainty (md=0.7, P=0.092). About half (48%) preferred symbols over numbers. For the presentation of the QOE, objective understanding of symbols and letters was similar (91% vs. 95%, P=0.509). Participants scored both symbols and letters positively; the scores for symbols were however lower for ease of understanding (md=-0.7, P=0.019), clearness and conciseness (md=-0.6, P=0.051), and conveyance of the QOE (md=-0.4, P=0.24).
CONCLUSION: Symbols were superior to numbers for the presentation of the SOR. Objective understanding was high for both symbols and letters for the presentation of the QOE, but letters conveyed the QOE better than symbols.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17998085     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  15 in total

1.  Developing clinical practice guidelines: types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations.

Authors:  Steven Woolf; Holger J Schünemann; Martin P Eccles; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Paul Shekelle
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2012-07-04       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 2.  Using GRADE methodology for the development of public health guidelines for the prevention and treatment of HIV and other STIs among men who have sex with men and transgender people.

Authors:  Elie A Akl; Caitlin Kennedy; Kelika Konda; Carlos F Caceres; Tara Horvath; George Ayala; Andrew Doupe; Antonio Gerbase; Charles Shey Wiysonge; Eddy R Segura; Holger J Schünemann; Ying-Ru Lo
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 3.  Current experience with applying the GRADE approach to public health interventions: an empirical study.

Authors:  Eva A Rehfuess; Elie A Akl
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 3.295

4.  Perceptions and attitudes of clinicians in Spain toward clinical practice guidelines and grading systems: a protocol for a qualitative study and a national survey.

Authors:  Anna Kotzeva; Ivan Solà; José Miguel Carrasco; Petra Díaz del Campo; Francisco Javier Gracia; Enrique Calderón; Idoia de Gaminde; Maria Dolors Estrada; Flora Martínez; Carola Orrego; Rafael Rotaeche; Flavia Salcedo; Paola Velázquez; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Comparison between the standard and a new alternative format of the Summary-of-Findings tables in Cochrane review users: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Nancy Santesso; Ignacio Neumann; Reem A Mustafa; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Itziar Etxeandia Ikobaltzeta; Catherine De Stio; Lauren J McCullagh; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Joerg J Meerpohl; Per Olav Vandvik; Jan L Brozek; Elie A Akl; Patrick Bossuyt; Rachel Churchill; Claire Glenton; Sarah Rosenbaum; Peter Tugwell; Vivian Welch; Gordon Guyatt; Holger Schünemann
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Attitudes and perceptions about clinical guidelines: a qualitative study with Spanish physicians.

Authors:  Ivan Solà; José Miguel Carrasco; Petra Díaz Del Campo; Javier Gracia; Carola Orrego; Flora Martínez; Anna Kotzeva; Imma Guillamón; Enrique Calderón; Idoia de Gaminde; Arturo Louro; Rafael Rotaeche; Flavia Salcedo; Paola Velázquez; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Patient and public attitudes to and awareness of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review with thematic and narrative syntheses.

Authors:  Kirsty Loudon; Nancy Santesso; Margaret Callaghan; Judith Thornton; Jenny Harbour; Karen Graham; Robin Harbour; Ilkka Kunnamo; Helena Liira; Emma McFarlane; Karen Ritchie; Shaun Treweek
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-07-27       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  From evidence to action: Understanding clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Rudolf W Poolman; Cees C P M Verheyen; Gino M Kerkhoffs; Mohit Bhandari; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Andrew D Oxman; Philip Alderson; Patrick M Bossuyt; Linn Brandt; Jan Brożek; Marina Davoli; Signe Flottorp; Robin Harbour; Suzanne Hill; Alessandro Liberati; Helena Liira; Holger J Schünemann; Sarah Rosenbaum; Judith Thornton; Per Olav Vandvik; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 10.  Basing information on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the scientific evidence: a quality dimension of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.

Authors:  Victor M Montori; Annie LeBlanc; Angela Buchholz; Diana L Stilwell; Apostolos Tsapas
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.