Chun Wah Michael Tam1, Abeer Hasan Khan2, Andrew Knight3, Joel Rhee4, Karen Price5, Katrina McLean6. 1. BSc (Med), MBBS, MMH (GP), FRACGP, Staff Specialist, Academic Primary and Integrated Care Unit, South Western Sydney Local Health District and Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research; Conjoint Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW Sydney, NSW. m.tam@unsw.edu.au 2. BMed, medical student, UNSW Medicine, Sydney, NSW 3. MBBS, MMedSci, FRACGP, FAICD, Acting Director, Academic Primary and Integrated Care Unit, South Western Sydney Local Health District and Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research; Conjoint Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW Sydney, NSW 4. BSc (Med), MBBS (Hons), GCULT, PhD, FRACGP, Associate Professor in General Practice, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Wollongong, NSW 5. MBBS, Dip Adolescent Medicine, FRACGP, Clinical academic, Department of General Practice, Monash University, Vic; moderator, GPs Down Under 6. BMLSc (Dist), PGDip Sport Med, MBChB, FRNZCGP, FRACGP, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Qld; moderator, GPs Down Under
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Researchers and clinicians have been criticised for frequently misinterpreting and misusing P values. This study sought to understand how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia and New Zealand conceptualise P values presented in the manner typically encountered in a medical publication. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used quantitative and qualitative questions embedded in an online questionnaire and delivered through an Australian and New Zealand GP-specific Facebook group in 2017. It included questions that elaborated on the participant’s conceptualisation of ‘P = 0.05’ within a scenario and tested their P value interpretation ability and confidence. RESULTS: There were 247 participants who completed the questionnaire. Participant conceptualisations of P values were described using six thematic categories. The most common (and erroneous) conceptualisation was that P values numerically indicated a ‘real-world probability’. No demographic factor, including research experience, seemed associated with better interpretation ability. A confidence–ability gap was detected. DISCUSSION: P value misunderstanding is pervasive and might be influenced by a few central misconceptions. Statistics education for clinicians should explicitly address the most common misconceptions.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Researchers and clinicians have been criticised for frequently misinterpreting and misusing P values. This study sought to understand how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia and New Zealand conceptualise P values presented in the manner typically encountered in a medical publication. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used quantitative and qualitative questions embedded in an online questionnaire and delivered through an Australian and New Zealand GP-specific Facebook group in 2017. It included questions that elaborated on the participant’s conceptualisation of ‘P = 0.05’ within a scenario and tested their P value interpretation ability and confidence. RESULTS: There were 247 participants who completed the questionnaire. Participant conceptualisations of P values were described using six thematic categories. The most common (and erroneous) conceptualisation was that P values numerically indicated a ‘real-world probability’. No demographic factor, including research experience, seemed associated with better interpretation ability. A confidence–ability gap was detected. DISCUSSION: P value misunderstanding is pervasive and might be influenced by a few central misconceptions. Statistics education for clinicians should explicitly address the most common misconceptions.