Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care

Abstract

The qualitative studyidentified new constructs with regard to how patients process probabilistic information. Further research in the clinical setting is needed to provide a theoretical justification for the format used when presenting risk information to patients.

Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: Evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial

“…In this context, the large qualitative dataset, albeit with a highly selected sample, was informative. Appropriately expressed numerical information (natural frequency formats) was generally found helpful, as elsewhere [8,[42][43][44]. Additional formats such as numbersneeded-to-treat did not appear to be valued by participants, as in other observational [45] or intervention studies [46].…”

Communicating global cardiovascular risk: Are icon arrays better than numerical estimates in improving understanding, recall and perception of risk?

“…At the same time, the follow up of 2 weeks may not be enough to ascertain true behavioral change. Other visual formats can also serve as useful aids for communicating cardiovascular risk to patients such as bar graphs, line graphs, and pie charts [79][80][81]. Research into the use of these alternative visual aids to convey cardiovascular risk may demonstrate benefits in these populations.…”

Benefits of visualization in the Mammography Problem

“…When making an important decision, knowing how to apply and interpret this mathematical formula containing conditional probabilities with several interacting parameters is inherently difficult (Cole and Davidson, 1989). Yet this scenario is surprisingly commonplace in medical decision making, given laboratory test results (Cole, 1989), when seeking informed consent, understanding the risks and benefits of participating in a clinical trial (Schapira et al, 2008), or for making financial decisions about investments without guaranteed returns (Spiegelhalter et al, 2011).…”