Literature DB >> 20484088

Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect?

Rocio Garcia-Retamero1, Mirta Galesic, Gerd Gigerenzer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: Denominator neglect is the focus on the number of times a target event has happened (e.g., the number of treated and nontreated patients who die) without considering the overall number of opportunities for it to happen (e.g., the overall number of treated and nontreated patients). In 2 studies, we addressed the effect of denominator neglect in problems involving treatment risk reduction where samples of treated and non-treated patients and the relative risk reduction were of different sizes. We also tested whether using icon arrays helps people take these different sample sizes into account. We especially focused on older adults, who are often more disadvantaged when making decisions about their health.
DESIGN: . Study 1 was conducted on a laboratory sample using a within-subjects design; study 2 was conducted on a nonstudent sample interviewed through the Web using a between-subjects design. OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy of understanding risk reduction.
RESULTS: Participants often paid too much attention to numerators and insufficient attention to denominators when numerical information about treatment risk reduction was provided. Adding icon arrays to the numerical information, however, drew participants' attention to the denominators and helped them make more accurate assessments of treatment risk reduction. Icon arrays were equally helpful to younger and older adults.
CONCLUSIONS: Building on previous research showing that problems with understanding numerical information often do not reside in the mind but in the representation of the problem, the results show that icon arrays are an effective method of eliminating denominator neglect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20484088     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10369000

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


  38 in total

1.  Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Dan Rigby; Caroline Vass; Terry Flynn; Jordan Louviere; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Fuzzy universality of probability judgment.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Charles J Brainerd
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  "I Was Trying to Do the Maths": Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Caroline Vass; Dan Rigby; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Which cognitive individual differences predict good Bayesian reasoning? Concurrent comparisons of underlying abilities.

Authors:  Gary Brase
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-02

6.  Primary Care-Based Staff Ideas for Implementing a Mammography Decision Aid for Women 75+: a Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Alicia R Jacobson; Gianna M Aliberti; Michelle Hayes; Anne Hackman; Maria Karamourtopolous; Christine Kistler
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health.

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Mirta Galesic
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-08-25       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Effects of a risk-based online mammography intervention on accuracy of perceived risk and mammography intentions.

Authors:  Holli H Seitz; Laura Gibson; Christine Skubisz; Heather Forquer; Susan Mello; Marilyn M Schapira; Katrina Armstrong; Joseph N Cappella
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-05-04

9.  Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: a cross-cultural comparison.

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Mirta Galesic
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Illustrating Cancer Risk: Patient Risk Communication Preferences and Interest regarding a Novel BRCA1/2 Genetic Risk Modifier Test.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Margaux Genoff Garzon; Ibrahim H Shah; Kechna Cadet; Elyse Shuk; Joy S Westerman; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.