OBJECTIVE: To evaluate various formats for the communication of prenatal test results. DESIGN:In study 1 (N=400), female students completed a questionnaire assessing risk perception, affect, and perceived usefulness of prenatal test results. A randomized, 2 (risk level; low, high) x 4 (format; ratio with numerator 1, ratio with denominator 1000, Paling Perspective Scale, pictograms) design was used. Study 2 (N=200) employed a 2 (risk level; low, high) x 2 (format; Paling Perspective Scale, risk comparisons in numerical format) design. RESULTS: In study 1, the Paling Perspective Scale resulted in a higher level of perceived risk across different risk levels compared with the other formats. Furthermore, participants in the low-risk group perceived the test results as less risky compared with participants in the high-risk group (P < 0.001) when the Paling Perspective Scale was used. No significant differences between low and high risks were observed for the other 3 formats. In study 2, the Paling Perspective Scale evoked higher levels of perceived risks relative to the numerical presentation of risk comparisons. For both formats, we found that participants confronted with a high risk perceived test results as more risky compared with participants confronted with a low risk. CONCLUSION: The Paling Perspective Scale resulted in a higher level of perceived risk compared with the other formats. This effect must be taken into account when choosing a graphical or numerical format for risk communication.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate various formats for the communication of prenatal test results. DESIGN: In study 1 (N=400), female students completed a questionnaire assessing risk perception, affect, and perceived usefulness of prenatal test results. A randomized, 2 (risk level; low, high) x 4 (format; ratio with numerator 1, ratio with denominator 1000, Paling Perspective Scale, pictograms) design was used. Study 2 (N=200) employed a 2 (risk level; low, high) x 2 (format; Paling Perspective Scale, risk comparisons in numerical format) design. RESULTS: In study 1, the Paling Perspective Scale resulted in a higher level of perceived risk across different risk levels compared with the other formats. Furthermore, participants in the low-risk group perceived the test results as less risky compared with participants in the high-risk group (P < 0.001) when the Paling Perspective Scale was used. No significant differences between low and high risks were observed for the other 3 formats. In study 2, the Paling Perspective Scale evoked higher levels of perceived risks relative to the numerical presentation of risk comparisons. For both formats, we found that participants confronted with a high risk perceived test results as more risky compared with participants confronted with a low risk. CONCLUSION: The Paling Perspective Scale resulted in a higher level of perceived risk compared with the other formats. This effect must be taken into account when choosing a graphical or numerical format for risk communication.
Authors: Meghan Reading Turchioe; Lisa V Grossman; Annie C Myers; Dawon Baik; Parag Goyal; Ruth M Masterson Creber Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lidewij Henneman; Jan C Oosterwijk; Christi J van Asperen; Fred H Menko; Caroline F Ockhuysen-Vermey; Piet J Kostense; Liesbeth Claassen; Daniëlle Rm Timmermans Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Helen Fischer; Stefanie Schütte; Anneliese Depoux; Dorothee Amelung; Rainer Sauerborn Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 3.390