Literature DB >> 24246564

Blocks, ovals, or people? Icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs.

Brian J Zikmund-Fisher1,2,3,4, Holly O Witteman3,5,6,7, Mark Dickson3,8, Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis3,9, Valerie C Kahn3, Nicole L Exe3, Melissa Valerio3,10, Lisa G Holtzman11, Laura D Scherer3,12,13, Angela Fagerlin2,3,13,14.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research has demonstrated that icon arrays (also called "pictographs") are an effective method of communicating risk statistics and appear particularly useful to less numerate and less graphically literate people. Yet research is very limited regarding whether icon type affects how people interpret and remember these graphs.
METHODS: 1502 people age 35-75 from a demographically diverse online panel completed a cardiovascular risk calculator based on Framingham data using their actual age, weight, and other health data. Participants received their risk estimate in an icon array graphic that used 1 of 6 types of icons: rectangular blocks, filled ovals, smile/frown faces, an outline of a person's head and shoulders, male/female "restroom" person icons (gender matched), or actual head-and-shoulder photographs of people of varied races (gender matched). In each icon array, blue icons represented cardiovascular events and gray icons represented those who would not experience an event. We measured perceived risk magnitude, approximate recall, and opinions about the icon arrays, as well as subjective numeracy and an abbreviated measure of graphical literacy.
RESULTS: Risk recall was significantly higher with more anthropomorphic icons (restroom icons, head outlines, and photos) than with other icon types, and participants rated restroom icons as most preferred. However, while restroom icons resulted in the highest correlations between perceived and actual risk among more numerate/graphically literate participants, they performed no better than other icon types among less numerate/graphically literate participants.
CONCLUSIONS: Icon type influences both risk perceptions and risk recall, with restroom icons in particular resulting in improved outcomes. However, optimal icon types may depend on numeracy and/or graphical literacy skills.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision aids; patient education as topic; patient-provider communication; risk; visual aids

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24246564      PMCID: PMC3991751          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13511706

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


  39 in total

Review 1.  Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Al Mulley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-06

2.  Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates.

Authors:  Sandra M Brown; Julie O Culver; Kathryn E Osann; Deborah J MacDonald; Sharon Sand; Andrea A Thornton; Marcia Grant; Deborah J Bowen; Kelly A Metcalfe; Harry B Burke; Mark E Robson; Susan Friedman; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-04

3.  Pictures speak louder than numbers: on communicating medical risks to immigrants with limited non-native language proficiency.

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Mandeep K Dhami
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Dylan M Smith; Holly A Derry; Jennifer B McClure; Azadeh Stark; Rosemarie K Pitsch; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-11

6.  Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-Accuracy, comprehension and preferences.

Authors:  Melanie Price; Rachel Cameron; Phyllis Butow
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2007-10-01

7.  The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-08-27

8.  The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 3.929

9.  Risk estimates from an online risk calculator are more believable and recalled better when expressed as integers.

Authors:  Holly O Witteman; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Erika A Waters; Teresa Gavaruzzi; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  The effect of alternative graphical displays used to present the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat on decisions about whether to seek treatment: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Cheryl L L Carling; Doris Tove Kristoffersen; Signe Flottorp; Atle Fretheim; Andrew D Oxman; Holger J Schünemann; Elie A Akl; Jeph Herrin; Thomas D MacKenzie; Victor M Montori
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  34 in total

1.  Information visualizations of symptom information for patients and providers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Maichou Lor; Theresa A Koleck; Suzanne Bakken
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  "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

3.  A Randomized Study of Patient Risk Perception for Incidental Renal Findings on Diagnostic Imaging Tests.

Authors:  Stella K Kang; Laura D Scherer; Alec J Megibow; Leslie J Higuita; Nathanael Kim; R Scott Braithwaite; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 4.  Pharmaceutical Benefit-Risk Communication Tools: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Dominic Way; Hortense Blazsin; Ragnar Löfstedt; Frederic Bouder
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Development and testing of a frailty-focused communication (FCOM) aid for older adults.

Authors:  Cathy A Maxwell; Russell Rothman; Ruth Wolever; Sandra Simmons; Mary S Dietrich; Richard Miller; Mayur Patel; Mohana B Karlekar; Sheila Ridner
Journal:  Geriatr Nurs       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 2.361

6.  Using the Short Graph Literacy Scale to Predict Precursors of Health Behavior Change.

Authors:  Yasmina Okan; Eva Janssen; Mirta Galesic; Erika A Waters
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Usability and feasibility of consumer-facing technology to reduce unsafe medication use by older adults.

Authors:  Richard J Holden; Noll L Campbell; Ephrem Abebe; Daniel O Clark; Denisha Ferguson; Kunal Bodke; Malaz A Boustani; Christopher M Callahan
Journal:  Res Social Adm Pharm       Date:  2019-02-26

8.  Automated pictographic illustration of discharge instructions with Glyph: impact on patient recall and satisfaction.

Authors:  Brent Hill; Seneca Perri-Moore; Jinqiu Kuang; Bruce E Bray; Long Ngo; Alexa Doig; Qing Zeng-Treitler
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Development and Testing of Shared Decision Making Interventions for Use in Emergency Care: A Research Agenda.

Authors:  Edward R Melnick; Marc A Probst; Elizabeth Schoenfeld; Sean P Collins; Maggie Breslin; Cheryl Walsh; Nathan Kuppermann; Pat Dunn; Benjamin S Abella; Dowin Boatright; Erik P Hess
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.451

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.