Pete Wegier1, Victoria A Shaffer2. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Electronic address: wegierp@health.missouri.edu. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA; Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of simulated experiences to communicate statistical information can improve an individual's understanding of conditional probabilities-specifically the positive predictive value (PPV) of prenatal screening tests for Down syndrome. METHODS: In Experiment 1 (N=64) and Experiment 2 (N=180) participants were asked to estimate the PPV of a prenatal screening test for Down syndrome based on either (1) explicit statistics regarding the prevalence of Down syndrome and the sensitivity and specificity of a prenatal screening test for Down syndrome, or (2) experiencing up to 5000 simulated test results over a short time. RESULTS: Participants' estimates of the PPV were more accurate when they had learned via simulated experiences (79% accuracy) compared with estimates based on explicitly described statistics (14%). Participants in the simulated experience condition also reported decreased interest in screening and decreased concern with a positive test result. CONCLUSION: Simulated experiences improve PPV estimates, compared to estimates derived from explicitly provided statistics, while also shifting attitudes away from screening. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The use of simulated experiences may prove to be simple but powerful tool to communicate complex statistical information to patients in medical decision making situations.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of simulated experiences to communicate statistical information can improve an individual's understanding of conditional probabilities-specifically the positive predictive value (PPV) of prenatal screening tests for Down syndrome. METHODS: In Experiment 1 (N=64) and Experiment 2 (N=180) participants were asked to estimate the PPV of a prenatal screening test for Down syndrome based on either (1) explicit statistics regarding the prevalence of Down syndrome and the sensitivity and specificity of a prenatal screening test for Down syndrome, or (2) experiencing up to 5000 simulated test results over a short time. RESULTS:Participants' estimates of the PPV were more accurate when they had learned via simulated experiences (79% accuracy) compared with estimates based on explicitly described statistics (14%). Participants in the simulated experience condition also reported decreased interest in screening and decreased concern with a positive test result. CONCLUSION: Simulated experiences improve PPV estimates, compared to estimates derived from explicitly provided statistics, while also shifting attitudes away from screening. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The use of simulated experiences may prove to be simple but powerful tool to communicate complex statistical information to patients in medical decision making situations.
Authors: Liana Fraenkel; W Benjamin Nowell; Christine E Stake; Shilpa Venkatachalam; Rachel Eyler; George Michel; Ellen Peters Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Meghan Reading Turchioe; Lisa V Grossman; Annie C Myers; Dawon Baik; Parag Goyal; Ruth M Masterson Creber Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497