Brian J Zikmund-Fisher1, Angela Fagerlin, Peter A Ubel. 1. VA Health Services Research & Development Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. bzikmund@umich.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Online tools such as Adjuvant! provide tailored estimates of the possible outcomes of adjuvant therapy options available to breast cancer patients. The graphical format typically displays 4 outcomes simultaneously: survival, mortality due to cancer, other-cause mortality, and incremental survival due to adjuvant treatment. OBJECTIVE: To test whether simpler formats that present only baseline and incremental survival would improve comprehension of the relevant risk statistics and/or affect treatment intentions. DESIGN: . Randomized experimental manipulation of risk graphics shown included in Internet-administered survey vignettes about adjuvant therapy decisions for breast cancer patients with ER + tumors. PARTICIPANTS: Demographically diverse, stratified random samples of women ages 40 to 74 y recruited from an Internet research panel. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to view either pictographs (icon arrays) that displayed all 4 possible outcomes or pictographs that showed only survival outcomes. MEASUREMENTS: Comprehension of key statistics, task completion times, graph evaluation ratings, and perceived interest in adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: In the primary study (N = 832), participants who viewed survival-only pictographs had better accuracy when reporting the total chance of survival with both chemotherapy and hormonal therapy (63% v. 50%, P < 0.001), higher graph evaluation ratings (x = 7.98 v. 7.67, P = 0.04), and less interest in adding chemotherapy to hormonal therapy (43% v. 50%, P = 0.04; adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.68, P = 0.008). A replication study (N = 714) confirmed that participants who viewed survival-only graphs had higher graph evaluation ratings (x = 8.06 v. 7.72, P = 0.04) and reduced interest in chemotherapy (OR=0.67,P=0.03). LIMITATIONS: Studies used general public samples; actual patients may process risk information differently. CONCLUSIONS: Taking a ''less is more'' approach by omitting redundant mortality outcome statistics can be an effective method of risk communication and may be preferable when using visual formats such as pictographs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Online tools such as Adjuvant! provide tailored estimates of the possible outcomes of adjuvant therapy options available to breast cancerpatients. The graphical format typically displays 4 outcomes simultaneously: survival, mortality due to cancer, other-cause mortality, and incremental survival due to adjuvant treatment. OBJECTIVE: To test whether simpler formats that present only baseline and incremental survival would improve comprehension of the relevant risk statistics and/or affect treatment intentions. DESIGN: . Randomized experimental manipulation of risk graphics shown included in Internet-administered survey vignettes about adjuvant therapy decisions for breast cancerpatients with ER + tumors. PARTICIPANTS: Demographically diverse, stratified random samples of women ages 40 to 74 y recruited from an Internet research panel. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to view either pictographs (icon arrays) that displayed all 4 possible outcomes or pictographs that showed only survival outcomes. MEASUREMENTS: Comprehension of key statistics, task completion times, graph evaluation ratings, and perceived interest in adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: In the primary study (N = 832), participants who viewed survival-only pictographs had better accuracy when reporting the total chance of survival with both chemotherapy and hormonal therapy (63% v. 50%, P < 0.001), higher graph evaluation ratings (x = 7.98 v. 7.67, P = 0.04), and less interest in adding chemotherapy to hormonal therapy (43% v. 50%, P = 0.04; adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.68, P = 0.008). A replication study (N = 714) confirmed that participants who viewed survival-only graphs had higher graph evaluation ratings (x = 8.06 v. 7.72, P = 0.04) and reduced interest in chemotherapy (OR=0.67,P=0.03). LIMITATIONS: Studies used general public samples; actual patients may process risk information differently. CONCLUSIONS: Taking a ''less is more'' approach by omitting redundant mortality outcome statistics can be an effective method of risk communication and may be preferable when using visual formats such as pictographs.
Authors: V M Duric; M R Stockler; S Heritier; F Boyle; J Beith; A Sullivan; N Wilcken; A S Coates; R J Simes Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-08-26 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Aleksandra Jankovic; Holly A Derry; Dylan M Smith Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: A M O'Connor; D Stacey; V Entwistle; H Llewellyn-Thomas; D Rovner; M Holmes-Rovner; V Tait; J Tetroe; V Fiset; M Barry; J Jones Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2003
Authors: S J Jansen; J Kievit; M A Nooij; J C de Haes; I M Overpelt; H van Slooten; E Maartense; A M Stiggelbout Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jessica S Ancker; Cara Stabile; Jeanne Carter; Ling Y Chen; Daniel Stein; Peter D Stetson; Andrew J Vickers; Brett A Simon; Larissa K Temple; Andrea L Pusic Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Alice R Richman; Jessica T DeFrank; Valerie F Reyna; Lisa A Carey Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Barry G Saver; Kathleen M Mazor; Roger Luckmann; Sarah L Cutrona; Marcela Hayes; Tatyana Gorodetsky; Nancy Esparza; Gonzalo Bacigalupe Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Kimberly A Fisher; Andy S L Tan; Daniel D Matlock; Barry Saver; Kathleen M Mazor; Arwen H Pieterse Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-08-06
Authors: S B Haga; W T Barry; R Mills; L Svetkey; S Suchindran; H F Willard; G S Ginsburg Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 2.000