Literature DB >> 20393103

Effects of game-like interactive graphics on risk perceptions and decisions.

Jessica S Ancker1, Elke U Weber2,3, Rita Kukafka1,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many patients have difficulty interpreting risks described in statistical terms as percentages. Computer game technology offers the opportunity to experience how often an event occurs, rather than simply read about its frequency.
OBJECTIVE: . To assess effects of interactive graphics on risk perceptions and decisions.
DESIGN: . Electronic questionnaire. Participants and setting. Respondents (n = 165) recruited online or at an urban hospital. Intervention. Health risks were illustrated by either static graphics or interactive game-like graphics. The interactive search graphic was a grid of squares, which, when clicked, revealed stick figures underneath. Respondents had to click until they found a figure affected by the disease. Measurements. Risk feelings, risk estimates, intention to take preventive action.
RESULTS: . Different graphics did not affect mean risk estimates, risk feelings, or intention. Low-numeracy participants reported significantly higher risk feelings than high-numeracy ones except with the interactive search graphic. Unexpectedly, respondents reported stronger intentions to take preventive action when the intention question followed questions about efficacy and disease severity than when it followed perceived risk questions (65% v. 34%; P < 0.001). When respondents reported risk feelings immediately after using the search graphic, the interaction affected perceived risk (the longer the search to find affected stick figures, the higher the risk feeling: ρ = 0.57; P = 0.009). Limitations. The authors used hypothetical decisions.
CONCLUSIONS: . A game-like graphic that allowed consumers to search for stick figures affected by disease had no main effect on risk perception but reduced differences based on numeracy. In one condition, the game-like graphic increased concern about rare risks. Intentions for preventive action were stronger with a question order that focused first on efficacy and disease severity than with one that focused first on perceived risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20393103      PMCID: PMC5470725          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10364847

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  40 in total

1.  Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy.

Authors:  D W Baker; M V Williams; R M Parker; J A Gazmararian; J Nurss
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1999-09

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

Review 3.  Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; David Kaufman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Testing a visual display to explain small probabilities.

Authors:  N D Weinstein; P M Sandman; W K Hallman
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.000

5.  Educational video game for juvenile diabetes: results of a controlled trial.

Authors:  S J Brown; D A Lieberman; B A Germeny; Y C Fan; D M Wilson; D J Pasta
Journal:  Med Inform (Lond)       Date:  1997 Jan-Mar

6.  The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Ann B Nattinger; Timothy L McAuliffe
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2006-09

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

9.  Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy.

Authors:  Mirta Galesic; Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Gerd Gigerenzer
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.267

10.  Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population.

Authors:  Susan L Davids; Marilyn M Schapira; Timothy L McAuliffe; Ann B Nattinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  15 in total

1.  Usability Testing of a Web-Based Decision Aid for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Among Multi-Ethnic Women.

Authors:  Austin M Coe; William Ueng; Jennifer M Vargas; Raven David; Alejandro Vanegas; Katherine Infante; Meghna Trivedi; Haeseung Yi; Jill Dimond; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2017-02-10

2.  Effect of arrangement of stick figures on estimates of proportion in risk graphics.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Elke U Weber; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Bill Killam; Tom Lehman; Holly Massett; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-03-05

4.  Perceived versus predicted risks of colorectal cancer and self-reported colonoscopies by members of mismatch repair gene mutation-carrying families who have declined genetic testing.

Authors:  Louisa Flander; Andrew Speirs-Bridge; Alison Rutstein; Heather Niven; Aung Ko Win; Driss Ait Ouakrim; John L Hopper; Finlay Macrae; Louise Keogh; Clara Gaff; Mark Jenkins
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  An information-centric framework for designing patient-centered medical decision aids and risk communication.

Authors:  Lyndsey Franklin; Catherine Plaisant; Ben Shneiderman
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

6.  Health IT Usability Focus Section: Adapting EHR-Based Medication Instructions to Comply with Plain Language Guidance-A Randomized Experiment.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Alexander Send; Baria Hafeez; Snezana N Osorio; Erika Abramson
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 2.342

7.  Does Animation Improve Comprehension of Risk Information in Patients with Low Health Literacy? A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Ashley J Housten; Geetanjali R Kamath; Therese B Bevers; Scott B Cantor; Nickell Dixon; Andre Hite; Michael A Kallen; Viola B Leal; Liang Li; Robert J Volk
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  A new adaptive testing algorithm for shortening health literacy assessments.

Authors:  Sasikiran Kandula; Jessica S Ancker; David R Kaufman; Leanne M Currie; Qing Zeng-Treitler
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2011-08-06       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  Cool but counterproductive: interactive, Web-based risk communications can backfire.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Mark Dickson; Holly O Witteman
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Animated graphics for comparing two risks: a cautionary tale.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Holly O Witteman; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis; Nicole L Exe; Valerie C Kahn; Mark Dickson
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.