Literature DB >> 20561265

Understanding the positive effects of graphical risk information on comprehension: measuring attention directed to written, tabular, and graphical risk information.

Chris M R Smerecnik1, Ilse Mesters, Loes T E Kessels, Robert A C Ruiter, Nanne K De Vries, Hein De Vries.   

Abstract

Risk communications are an integral aspect of health education and promotion. However, the commonly used textual risk information is relatively difficult to understand for the average recipient. Consequently, researchers and health promoters have started to focus on so-called decision aids, such as tables and graphs. Although tabular and graphical risk information more effectively communicate risks than textual risk information, the cognitive mechanisms responsible for this enhancement are unclear. This study aimed to examine two possible mechanisms (i.e., cognitive workload and attention). Cognitive workload (mean pupil size and peak pupil dilation) and attention directed to the risk information (viewing time, number of eye fixations, and eye fixation durations) were both measured in a between-subjects experimental design. The results suggest that graphical risk information facilitates comprehension of that information because it attracts and holds attention for a longer period of time than textual risk information. Graphs are thus a valuable asset to risk communication practice for two reasons: first, they tend to attract attention and, second, when attended to, they elicit information extraction with relatively little cognitive effort, and finally result in better comprehension.
© 2010 Society for Risk Analysis.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20561265     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01435.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  6 in total

1.  Tables or bar graphs? Presenting test results in electronic medical records.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Melissa B Gilkey; Sarah E Lillie; Bradford W Hesse; Stacey L Sheridan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Social presence and use of internet-delivered interventions: a multi-method approach.

Authors:  Rik Crutzen; Dianne Cyr; Hector Larios; Robert A C Ruiter; Nanne K de Vries
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Patient reactions to a web-based cardiovascular risk calculator in type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study in primary care.

Authors:  Tom Nolan; Charlotte Dack; Kingshuk Pal; Jamie Ross; Fiona A Stevenson; Richard Peacock; Mike Pearson; David Spiegelhalter; Michael Sweeting; Elizabeth Murray
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information.

Authors:  Olga C Damman; Nina M M Bogaerts; Maaike J van den Haak; Danielle R M Timmermans
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Narratives and images used by public communication campaigns addressing social determinants of health and health disparities.

Authors:  Christopher E Clarke; Jeff Niederdeppe; Helen C Lundell
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  The effect of public reporting presentation on patients' decision making: An experimental survey in Yunan Province, China.

Authors:  Chenxi Liu; Yuqing Tang; Dan Wang; Xinping Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.