This review describes recent experimental and focus group research on graphics as a method of communication about quantitative health risks. Some of the studies discussed in this review assessed effect of graphs on quantitative reasoning, others assessed effects on behavior or behavioral intentions, and still others assessed viewers' likes and dislikes. Graphical features that improve the accuracy of quantitative reasoning appear to differ from the features most likely to alter behavior or intentions. For example, graphs that make part-to-whole relationships available visually may help people attend to the relationship between the numerator (the number of people affected by a hazard) and the denominator (the entire population at risk), whereas graphs that show only the numerator appear to inflate the perceived risk and may induce risk-averse behavior. Viewers often preferred design features such as visual simplicity and familiarity that were not associated with accurate quantitative judgments. Communicators should not assume that all graphics are more intuitive than text; many of the studies found that patients' interpretations of the graphics were dependent upon expertise or instruction. Potentially useful directions for continuing research include interactions with educational level and numeracy and successful ways to communicate uncertainty about risk.

Health informatics interventions are designed to help people avoid, recover from, or cope with disease and disability, or to improve the quality and safety of healthcare. Unfortunately, they pose a risk of producing intervention-generated inequalities (IGI) by disproportionately benefiting more advantaged people. In this perspective paper, we discuss characteristics of health-related interventions known to produce IGI, explain why health informatics interventions are particularly vulnerable to this phenomenon, and describe safeguards that can be implemented to improve health equity. We provide examples in which health informatics interventions produced inequality because they were more accessible to, heavily used by, adhered to, or effective for those from socioeconomically advantaged groups. We provide a brief outline of precautions that intervention developers and implementers can take to guard against creating or worsening inequality through health informatics. We conclude by discussing evaluation approaches that will ensure that IGIs are recognized and studied.

BackgroundAlthough alert fatigue is blamed for high override rates in contemporary clinical decision support systems, the concept of alert fatigue is poorly defined. We tested hypotheses arising from two possible alert fatigue mechanisms: (A) cognitive overload associated with amount of work, complexity of work, and effort distinguishing informative from uninformative alerts, and (B) desensitization from repeated exposure to the same alert over time.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using electronic health record data (both drug alerts and clinical practice reminders) from January 2010 through June 2013 from 112 ambulatory primary care clinicians. The cognitive overload hypotheses were that alert acceptance would be lower with higher workload (number of encounters, number of patients), higher work complexity (patient comorbidity, alerts per encounter), and more alerts low in informational value (repeated alerts for the same patient in the same year). The desensitization hypothesis was that, for newly deployed alerts, acceptance rates would decline after an initial peak.ResultsOn average, one-quarter of drug alerts received by a primary care clinician, and one-third of clinical reminders, were repeats for the same patient within the same year. Alert acceptance was associated with work complexity and repeated alerts, but not with the amount of work. Likelihood of reminder acceptance dropped by 30% for each additional reminder received per encounter, and by 10% for each five percentage point increase in proportion of repeated reminders. The newly deployed reminders did not show a pattern of declining response rates over time, which would have been consistent with desensitization. Interestingly, nurse practitioners were 4 times as likely to accept drug alerts as physicians.ConclusionsClinicians became less likely to accept alerts as they received more of them, particularly more repeated alerts. There was no evidence of an effect of workload per se, or of desensitization over time for a newly deployed alert. Reducing within-patient repeats may be a promising target for reducing alert overrides and alert fatigue.

No abstract

BackgroundConsumer health information technologies (HIT) that encourage self-tracking, such as diet and fitness tracking apps and disease journals, are attracting widespread interest among technology-oriented consumers (such as “quantified self” advocates), entrepreneurs, and the health care industry. Such electronic technologies could potentially benefit the growing population of patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). However, MCC is predominantly a condition of the elderly and disproportionately affects the less affluent, so it also seems possible that the barriers to use of consumer HIT would be particularly severe for this patient population.ObjectiveOur aim was to explore the perspectives of individuals with MCC using a semistructured interview study. Our research questions were (1) How do individuals with MCC track their own health and medical data? and (2) How do patients and providers perceive and use patient-tracked data?MethodsWe used semistructured interviews with patients with multiple chronic diseases and providers with experience caring for such patients, as well as participation in a diabetes education group to triangulate emerging themes. Data were analyzed using grounded theory and thematic analysis. Recruitment and analysis took place iteratively until thematic saturation was reached.ResultsInterviews were conducted with 22 patients and 7 health care providers. The patients had an average of 3.5 chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, chronic pain, and depression, and had regular relationships with an average of 5 providers. Four major themes arose from the interviews: (1) tracking this data feels like work for many patients, (2) personal medical data for individuals with chronic conditions are not simply objective facts, but instead provoke strong positive and negative emotions, value judgments, and diverse interpretations, (3) patients track for different purposes, ranging from sense-making to self-management to reporting to the doctor, and (4) patients often notice that physicians trust technologically measured data such as lab reports over patients’ self-tracked data.ConclusionsDevelopers of consumer health information technologies for data tracking (such as diet and exercise apps or blood glucose logs) often assume patients have unlimited enthusiasm for tracking their own health data via technology. However, our findings potentially explain relatively low adoption of consumer HIT, as they suggest that patients with multiple chronic illnesses consider it work to track their own data, that the data can be emotionally charged, and that they may perceive that providers do not welcome it. Similar themes have been found in some individual chronic diseases but appeared more complex because patients often encountered “illness work” connected to multiple diseases simultaneously and frequently faced additional challenges from aging or difficult comorbidities such as chronic pain, depression, and anxiety. We suggest that to make a public health impact, consumer HIT deve...

The purpose of this review is to organize various published conceptions of health numeracy and to discuss how health numeracy contributes to the productive use of quantitative information for health. We define health numeracy as the individual-level skills needed to understand and use quantitative health information, including basic computation skills, ability to use information in documents and non-text formats such as graphs, and ability to communicate orally. We also identify two other factors affecting whether a consumer can use quantitative health information: design of documents and other information artifacts, and health-care providers' communication skills. We draw upon the distributed cognition perspective to argue that essential ingredients for the productive use of quantitative health information include not only health numeracy but also good provider communication skills, as well as documents and devices that are designed to enhance comprehension and cognition.

No abstract

Background More than 100 studies document disparities in patient portal use among vulnerable populations. Developing and testing strategies to reduce disparities in use is essential to ensure portals benefit all populations. Objective To systematically review the impact of interventions designed to: (1) increase portal use or predictors of use in vulnerable patient populations, or (2) reduce disparities in use. Materials and Methods A librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Reviews for studies published before September 1, 2018. Two reviewers independently selected English-language research articles that evaluated any interventions designed to impact an eligible outcome. One reviewer extracted data and categorized interventions, then another assessed accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. Results Out of 18 included studies, 15 (83%) assessed an intervention's impact on portal use, 7 (39%) on predictors of use, and 1 (6%) on disparities in use. Most interventions studied focused on the individual (13 out of 26, 50%), as opposed to facilitating conditions, such as the tool, task, environment, or organization (SEIPS model). Twelve studies (67%) reported a statistically significant increase in portal use or predictors of use, or reduced disparities. Five studies (28%) had high or unclear risk of bias. Conclusion Individually focused interventions have the most evidence for increasing portal use in vulnerable populations. Interventions affecting other system elements (tool, task, environment, organization) have not been sufficiently studied to draw conclusions. Given the well-established evidence for disparities in use and the limited research on effective interventions, research should move beyond identifying disparities to systematically addressing them at multiple levels.