Literature DB >> 27034447

Natural Frequencies Do Not Foster Public Understanding of Medical Test Results.

Stefania Pighin1, Michel Gonzalez2, Lucia Savadori3, Vittorio Girotto1.   

Abstract

Major organizations recommend presenting medical test results in terms of natural frequencies, rather than single-event probabilities. The evidence, however, is that natural frequency presentations benefit at most one-fifth of samples of health service users and patients. Only one study reported a substantial benefit of these presentations. Here, we replicate that study, testing online survey respondents. Study 1 attributed the previously reported benefit of natural frequencies to a scoring artifact. Study 2 showed that natural frequencies may elicit evaluations that conflict with the normatively correct one, potentially hindering informed decision making. Ironically, these evaluations occurred less often when respondents reasoned about single-event probabilities. These results suggest caution in promoting natural frequencies as the best way to communicate medical test data to health service users and patients.
© The Author(s) 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diagnostic reasoning, numeracy; natural frequencies; single-event probability; test result understanding

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27034447     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16640785

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


  6 in total

1.  Another chance for good reasoning.

Authors:  Stefania Pighin; Katya Tentori; Vittorio Girotto
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-12

2.  From reading numbers to seeing ratios: a benefit of icons for risk comprehension.

Authors:  Elisabet Tubau; Javier Rodríguez-Ferreiro; Itxaso Barberia; Àngels Colomé
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-06-21

3.  Public's understanding of swab test results for SARS-CoV-2: an online behavioural experiment during the April 2020 lockdown.

Authors:  Stefania Pighin; Katya Tentori
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-17       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Tversky and Kahneman's Cognitive Illusions: Who Can Solve Them, and Why?

Authors:  Georg Bruckmaier; Stefan Krauss; Karin Binder; Sven Hilbert; Martin Brunner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-04-12

5.  Visualizing the Bayesian 2-test case: The effect of tree diagrams on medical decision making.

Authors:  Karin Binder; Stefan Krauss; Georg Bruckmaier; Jörg Marienhagen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Why Can Only 24% Solve Bayesian Reasoning Problems in Natural Frequencies: Frequency Phobia in Spite of Probability Blindness.

Authors:  Patrick Weber; Karin Binder; Stefan Krauss
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-10-12
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.