BACKGROUND: Despite limited evidence, it is often asserted that natural frequencies (for example, 2 in 1000) are the best way to communicate absolute risks. OBJECTIVE: To compare comprehension of treatment benefit and harm when absolute risks are presented as natural frequencies, percents, or both. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized trial with central allocation and masking of investigators to group assignment, conducted through an Internet survey in September 2009. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00950014) SETTING:National sample of U.S. adults randomly selected from a professional survey firm's research panel of about 30,000 households. PARTICIPANTS: 2944 adults aged 18 years or older (all with complete follow-up). INTERVENTION: Tables presenting absolute risks in 1 of 5 numeric formats: natural frequency (x in 1000), variable frequency (x in 100, x in 1000, or x in 10,000, as needed to keep the numerator >1), percent, percent plus natural frequency, or percent plus variable frequency. MEASUREMENTS: Comprehension as assessed by 18 questions (primary outcome) and judgment of treatment benefit and harm. RESULTS: The average number of comprehension questions answered correctly was lowest in the variable frequency group and highest in the percent group (13.1 vs. 13.8; difference, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.1]). The proportion of participants who "passed" the comprehension test (≥13 correct answers) was lowest in the natural and variable frequency groups and highest in the percent group (68% vs. 73%; difference, 5 percentage points [CI, 0 to 10 percentage points]). The largest format effect was seen for the 2 questions about absolute differences: the proportion correct in the natural frequency versus percent groups was 43% versus 72% (P < 0.001) and 73% versus 87% (P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Even when data were presented in the percent format, one third of participants failed the comprehension test. CONCLUSION: Natural frequencies are not the best format for communicating the absolute benefits and harms of treatment. The more succinct percent format resulted in better comprehension: Comprehension was slightly better overall and notably better for absolute differences. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Education grant program, the Robert Wood Johnson Pioneer Program, and the National Cancer Institute.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite limited evidence, it is often asserted that natural frequencies (for example, 2 in 1000) are the best way to communicate absolute risks. OBJECTIVE: To compare comprehension of treatment benefit and harm when absolute risks are presented as natural frequencies, percents, or both. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized trial with central allocation and masking of investigators to group assignment, conducted through an Internet survey in September 2009. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00950014) SETTING: National sample of U.S. adults randomly selected from a professional survey firm's research panel of about 30,000 households. PARTICIPANTS: 2944 adults aged 18 years or older (all with complete follow-up). INTERVENTION: Tables presenting absolute risks in 1 of 5 numeric formats: natural frequency (x in 1000), variable frequency (x in 100, x in 1000, or x in 10,000, as needed to keep the numerator >1), percent, percent plus natural frequency, or percent plus variable frequency. MEASUREMENTS: Comprehension as assessed by 18 questions (primary outcome) and judgment of treatment benefit and harm. RESULTS: The average number of comprehension questions answered correctly was lowest in the variable frequency group and highest in the percent group (13.1 vs. 13.8; difference, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.1]). The proportion of participants who "passed" the comprehension test (≥13 correct answers) was lowest in the natural and variable frequency groups and highest in the percent group (68% vs. 73%; difference, 5 percentage points [CI, 0 to 10 percentage points]). The largest format effect was seen for the 2 questions about absolute differences: the proportion correct in the natural frequency versus percent groups was 43% versus 72% (P < 0.001) and 73% versus 87% (P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Even when data were presented in the percent format, one third of participants failed the comprehension test. CONCLUSION: Natural frequencies are not the best format for communicating the absolute benefits and harms of treatment. The more succinct percent format resulted in better comprehension: Comprehension was slightly better overall and notably better for absolute differences. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Education grant program, the Robert Wood Johnson Pioneer Program, and the National Cancer Institute.
Authors: Helen W Sullivan; Amie C O'Donoghue; Kathryn J Aikin; Dhuly Chowdhury; Rebecca R Moultrie; Douglas J Rupert Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2015-12-22
Authors: Amie C O'Donoghue; Helen W Sullivan; Pamela A Williams; Claudia Squire; Kevin R Betts; Jessica Fitts Willoughby; Sarah Parvanta Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2016-07-14
Authors: Christian Keinki; Richard Zowalla; Martin Wiesner; Marie Jolin Koester; Jutta Huebner Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Brooke Nickel; Kirsten Howard; Juan P Brito; Alexandra Barratt; Ray Moynihan; Kirsten McCaffery Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 6.223