Julia C M van Weert1, Monique C Alblas2, Liset van Dijk3, Jesse Jansen4. 1. Amsterdam School of Communication Research / ASCoR, Department of Communication Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.c.m.vanweert@uva.nl. 2. Amsterdam School of Communication Research / ASCoR, Department of Communication Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.c.alblas@uva.nl. 3. Nivel, Netherlands Institute of Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dept. of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology & -Economics (PTEE), Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: l.vandijk@nivel.nl. 4. Sydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, 2006, Australia; Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: jesse.jansen@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate 1) younger (< 65) and older (> 65) adults' preference for and understanding of graph formats presenting risk information, and 2) the contribution of age, health literacy, numeracy and graph literacy in understanding information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To assess preferences, participants (n = 219 < 65 and n = 227>65) were exposed to a storyboard presenting six types of graphs. Understanding (verbatim and gist knowledge) was assessed in an experiment using a 6 (graphs: clock, bar, sparkplug, table, pie vs pictograph) by 2 (age: younger [<65] vs older [>65]) between-subjects design. RESULTS: Most participants preferred clock, pie or bar chart. Pie was not well understood by both younger and older people, and clock not by older people. Bar was fairly well understood in both groups. Table yielded high knowledge scores, particularly in the older group. Lower age, higher numeracy and higher graph literacy contributed to higher verbatim knowledge scores. Higher health literacy and graph literacy were associated with higher gist knowledge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although not the preferred format, tables are best understood by older adults. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Graph literacy skills are essential for both verbatim and gist understanding, and are important to take into account when developing risk information.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate 1) younger (< 65) and older (> 65) adults' preference for and understanding of graph formats presenting risk information, and 2) the contribution of age, health literacy, numeracy and graph literacy in understanding information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To assess preferences, participants (n = 219 < 65 and n = 227>65) were exposed to a storyboard presenting six types of graphs. Understanding (verbatim and gist knowledge) was assessed in an experiment using a 6 (graphs: clock, bar, sparkplug, table, pie vs pictograph) by 2 (age: younger [<65] vs older [>65]) between-subjects design. RESULTS: Most participants preferred clock, pie or bar chart. Pie was not well understood by both younger and older people, and clock not by older people. Bar was fairly well understood in both groups. Table yielded high knowledge scores, particularly in the older group. Lower age, higher numeracy and higher graph literacy contributed to higher verbatim knowledge scores. Higher health literacy and graph literacy were associated with higher gist knowledge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although not the preferred format, tables are best understood by older adults. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Graph literacy skills are essential for both verbatim and gist understanding, and are important to take into account when developing risk information.
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: Melanie de Looper; Ellen M A Smets; Barbara C Schouten; Sifra Bolle; Eric H J Belgers; Eric H Eddes; Jeroen W A Leijtens; Julia C M van Weert Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Ruben D Vromans; Saar Hommes; Felix J Clouth; Deborah N N Lo-Fo-Wong; Xander A A M Verbeek; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Steffen Pauws; Emiel Krahmer Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 3.298