Meghan Reading Turchioe1, Lisa V Grossman2, Annie C Myers1, Dawon Baik3, Parag Goyal4, Ruth M Masterson Creber1. 1. Division of Health Informatics, Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 3. College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients increasingly use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to self-monitor their health status. Visualizing PROs longitudinally (over time) could help patients interpret and contextualize their PROs. The study sought to assess hospitalized patients' objective comprehension (primary outcome) of text-only, non-graph, and graph visualizations that display longitudinal PROs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a clinical research study in 40 hospitalized patients comparing 4 visualization conditions: (1) text-only, (2) text plus visual analogy, (3) text plus number line, and (4) text plus line graph. Each participant viewed every condition, and we used counterbalancing (systematic randomization) to control for potential order effects. We assessed objective comprehension using the International Organization for Standardization protocol. Secondary outcomes included response times, preferences, risk perceptions, and behavioral intentions. RESULTS: Overall, 63% correctly comprehended the text-only condition and 60% comprehended the line graph condition, compared with 83% for the visual analogy and 70% for the number line (P = .05) conditions. Participants comprehended the visual analogy significantly better than the text-only (P = .02) and line graph (P = .02) conditions. Of participants who comprehended at least 1 condition, 14% preferred a condition that they did not comprehend. Low comprehension was associated with worse cognition (P < .001), lower education level (P = .02), and fewer financial resources (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The results support using visual analogies rather than text to display longitudinal PROs but caution against relying on graphs, which is consistent with the known high prevalence of inadequate graph literacy. The discrepancies between comprehension and preferences suggest factors other than comprehension influence preferences, and that future researchers should assess comprehension rather than preferences to guide presentation decisions.
OBJECTIVES:Patients increasingly use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to self-monitor their health status. Visualizing PROs longitudinally (over time) could help patients interpret and contextualize their PROs. The study sought to assess hospitalized patients' objective comprehension (primary outcome) of text-only, non-graph, and graph visualizations that display longitudinal PROs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a clinical research study in 40 hospitalized patients comparing 4 visualization conditions: (1) text-only, (2) text plus visual analogy, (3) text plus number line, and (4) text plus line graph. Each participant viewed every condition, and we used counterbalancing (systematic randomization) to control for potential order effects. We assessed objective comprehension using the International Organization for Standardization protocol. Secondary outcomes included response times, preferences, risk perceptions, and behavioral intentions. RESULTS: Overall, 63% correctly comprehended the text-only condition and 60% comprehended the line graph condition, compared with 83% for the visual analogy and 70% for the number line (P = .05) conditions. Participants comprehended the visual analogy significantly better than the text-only (P = .02) and line graph (P = .02) conditions. Of participants who comprehended at least 1 condition, 14% preferred a condition that they did not comprehend. Low comprehension was associated with worse cognition (P < .001), lower education level (P = .02), and fewer financial resources (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The results support using visual analogies rather than text to display longitudinal PROs but caution against relying on graphs, which is consistent with the known high prevalence of inadequate graph literacy. The discrepancies between comprehension and preferences suggest factors other than comprehension influence preferences, and that future researchers should assess comprehension rather than preferences to guide presentation decisions.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Aleksandra Jankovic; Holly A Derry; Dylan M Smith Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Claire F Snyder; Amy P Abernethy; Ethan Basch; Arnold L Potosky; Aaron C Roberts; Deena R Loeffler; Bryce B Reeve Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Katherine C Smith; Elissa T Bantug; Elliott E Tolbert; Amanda L Blackford; Michael D Brundage Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Parag Goyal; Monika M Safford; Sarah N Hilmer; Michael A Steinman; Daniel D Matlock; Mathew S Maurer; Mark S Lachs; Ian M Kronish Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Lauren E Snyder; Daniel F Phan; Kristen C Williams; Eduardo Piqueiras; Sarah E Connor; Sheba George; Lorna Kwan; Jefersson Villatoro Chavez; Megha D Tandel; Stanley K Frencher; Mark S Litwin; John L Gore; Andrea L Hartzler Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Jacqueline Vaughn; Donruedee Kamkhoad; Ryan J Shaw; Sharron L Docherty; Arvind P Subramaniam; Nirmish Shah Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.497