Krystal A Klein1, Lindsey Watson2, Joan S Ash3, Karen B Eden4. 1. Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA. Electronic address: kleinkr@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA. Electronic address: watsolin@ohsu.edu. 3. Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA. Electronic address: ash@ohsu.edu. 4. Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA. Electronic address: edenk@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We characterized patients' comprehension, memory, and impressions of risk communication messages in a patient decision aid (PtDA), Mammopad, and clarified perceived importance of numeric risk information in medical decision making. METHODS: Participants were 75 women in their forties with average risk factors for breast cancer. We used mixed methods, comprising a risk estimation problem administered within a pretest-posttest design, and semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of 21 women. RESULTS: Participants' positive predictive value estimates of screening mammography improved after using Mammopad. Although risk information was only briefly memorable, through content analysis, we identified themes describing why participants value quantitative risk information, and obstacles to understanding. We describe ways the most complicated graphic was incompletely comprehended. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehension of risk information following Mammopad use could be improved. Patients valued receiving numeric statistical information, particularly in pictograph format. Obstacles to understanding risk information, including potential for confusion between statistics, should be identified and mitigated in PtDA design. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Using simple pictographs accompanied by text, PtDAs may enhance a shared decision-making discussion. PtDA designers and providers should be aware of benefits and limitations of graphical risk presentations. Incorporating comprehension checks could help identify and correct misapprehensions of graphically presented statistics.
OBJECTIVES: We characterized patients' comprehension, memory, and impressions of risk communication messages in a patient decision aid (PtDA), Mammopad, and clarified perceived importance of numeric risk information in medical decision making. METHODS:Participants were 75 women in their forties with average risk factors for breast cancer. We used mixed methods, comprising a risk estimation problem administered within a pretest-posttest design, and semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of 21 women. RESULTS:Participants' positive predictive value estimates of screening mammography improved after using Mammopad. Although risk information was only briefly memorable, through content analysis, we identified themes describing why participants value quantitative risk information, and obstacles to understanding. We describe ways the most complicated graphic was incompletely comprehended. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehension of risk information following Mammopad use could be improved. Patients valued receiving numeric statistical information, particularly in pictograph format. Obstacles to understanding risk information, including potential for confusion between statistics, should be identified and mitigated in PtDA design. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Using simple pictographs accompanied by text, PtDAs may enhance a shared decision-making discussion. PtDA designers and providers should be aware of benefits and limitations of graphical risk presentations. Incorporating comprehension checks could help identify and correct misapprehensions of graphically presented statistics.
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-27
Authors: Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Holly O Witteman; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis; Nicole L Exe; Valerie C Kahn; Mark Dickson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lori L DuBenske; Sarina B Schrager; Mary E Hitchcock; Amanda K Kane; Terry A Little; Helene E McDowell; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Karen B Eden; Ilya Ivlev; Katherine L Bensching; Gabriel Franta; Alyssa R Hersh; James Case; Rongwei Fu; Heidi D Nelson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Aubri S Hoffman; Karen R Sepucha; Purva Abhyankar; Stacey Sheridan; Hilary Bekker; Annie LeBlanc; Carrie Levin; Mary Ropka; Victoria Shaffer; Dawn Stacey; Peep Stalmeier; Ha Vo; Celia Wills; Richard Thomson Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 7.418
Authors: Darren M Winograd; Cara L Fresquez; Madison Egli; Emily K Peterson; Alyssa R Lombardi; Allison Megale; Yajaira A Cabrera Tineo; Michael G Verile; Alison L Phillips; Jessica Y Breland; Susan Santos; Lisa M McAndrew Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-01-20
Authors: D B Raphael; N S Russell; J M Immink; P G Westhoff; M C Stenfert Kroese; M R Stam; L M van Maurik; H J G D van den Bongard; J H Maduro; M G A Sattler; T van der Weijden; L J Boersma Journal: Breast Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 4.380