Literature DB >> 8433638

Patients' and physicians' interpretations of graphic data displays.

D J Mazur1, D H Hickam.   

Abstract

To assess how patients' and physicians' treatment preferences are influenced by graphic data displays (five-year survival curves), a cross-sectional survey of patients, physicians, and medical students was done in a university-based Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Participants in the study were 119 patients seen in a general medicine clinic, 43 physicians, and 67 medical students. Three five-year survival graphs were used. Each graph contained survival curves for two alternative unidentified treatments for an unidentified medical condition. Graph 1 was a baseline graph used in previous studies of framing effects. Graph 2 contained one survival curve having an area under the curve that was 24% greater than that in graph 1. Graph 3 contained one survival curve that had an area under the curve that was 42% greater than that in graph 1. Respondents were asked to indicate which treatment they preferred for each graph and which aspects of the five-year survival curves most influenced their choices. Respondents did not receive numerical data about the difference between the areas under the two curves. Most patients did not change their preferences across the three graphs. A significantly larger (p < or = 0.0001) proportion of physicians and medical students than of patients changed their preferences across the three graphs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8433638     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9301300108

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; David Kaufman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 2.  Suitable trial designs and cohorts for preventive breast cancer agents.

Authors:  Kathrin Strasser-Weippl; Paul E Goss
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 3.  Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Yalini Senathirajah; Rita Kukafka; Justin B Starren
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2006-08-23       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of pharmacologic interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction.

Authors:  Kala Visvanathan; Rowan T Chlebowski; Patricia Hurley; Nananda F Col; Mary Ropka; Deborah Collyar; Monica Morrow; Carolyn Runowicz; Kathleen I Pritchard; Karen Hagerty; Banu Arun; Judy Garber; Victor G Vogel; James L Wade; Powel Brown; Jack Cuzick; Barnett S Kramer; Scott M Lippman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Effect of different visual presentations on the comprehension of prognostic information: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eman Abukmail; Mina Bakhit; Chris Del Mar; Tammy Hoffmann
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-08-25       Impact factor: 2.796

6.  Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot study.

Authors:  J M Fortin; L K Hirota; B E Bond; A M O'Connor; N F Col
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2001-08-01       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  Discussing life expectancy with surgical patients: do patients want to know and how should this information be delivered?

Authors:  Michael G Clarke; Katherine P Kennedy; Ruaraidh P MacDonagh
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2008-06-15       Impact factor: 2.796

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.