Jovana Sladakovic1, Jesse Jansen1, Jolyn Hersch1, Robin Turner1, Kirsten McCaffery2. 1. School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 2. School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: Kirsten.mccaffery@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine the effects of presenting uncertainty of quantitative risk information about medication harms and benefits on intention to take medication and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS:147 participants were randomized into four hypothetical scenarios: (1) harm/benefit presented as point-estimates, (2) harm as point/benefit as range, (3) harm as range/benefit as point, (4) harm/benefit as ranges. We assessed participants' intention to take medication, understanding, decisional conflict, and perceived benefit and harm. Participants viewed the scenario again with swapped range vs. point-estimate presentations; intention was re-assessed at time 2. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in intention across arms (p=0.93). There was an increase in intention to take medication between time 1 and time 2 in arm 4 (both harm/benefit presented as ranges, then point estimates). Understanding was greater when information was presented as point estimates compared to ranges, for both benefit (all questions correct: 74% vs 42%; χ2=15.28, df=2, p<0.001) and harm (all questions correct: 70% vs 43%; χ2=11.19, df=2, p=0.004) CONCLUSION: Changes in benefit information appear to be more influential in changing intention to take medication than harm information. Presenting uncertainty decreases understanding of information. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The findings may help develop optimal ways to present uncertainty.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine the effects of presenting uncertainty of quantitative risk information about medication harms and benefits on intention to take medication and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: 147 participants were randomized into four hypothetical scenarios: (1) harm/benefit presented as point-estimates, (2) harm as point/benefit as range, (3) harm as range/benefit as point, (4) harm/benefit as ranges. We assessed participants' intention to take medication, understanding, decisional conflict, and perceived benefit and harm. Participants viewed the scenario again with swapped range vs. point-estimate presentations; intention was re-assessed at time 2. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in intention across arms (p=0.93). There was an increase in intention to take medication between time 1 and time 2 in arm 4 (both harm/benefit presented as ranges, then point estimates). Understanding was greater when information was presented as point estimates compared to ranges, for both benefit (all questions correct: 74% vs 42%; χ2=15.28, df=2, p<0.001) and harm (all questions correct: 70% vs 43%; χ2=11.19, df=2, p=0.004) CONCLUSION: Changes in benefit information appear to be more influential in changing intention to take medication than harm information. Presenting uncertainty decreases understanding of information. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The findings may help develop optimal ways to present uncertainty.
Authors: Gary E Weissman; Kuldeep N Yadav; Vanessa Madden; Katherine R Courtright; Joanna L Hart; David A Asch; Marilyn M Schapira; Scott D Halpern Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Roland B Büchter; Cornelia Betsch; Martina Ehrlich; Dennis Fechtelpeter; Ulrich Grouven; Sabine Keller; Regina Meuer; Constanze Rossmann; Andreas Waltering Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 5.428