The Influence of Graphic Display Format on the Interpretations of Quantitative Risk Information among Adults with Lower Education and Literacy

Kirsten J. McCaffery, Ann Dixon, Andrew Hayen, Jesse Jansen, Sian Smith and Judy M. Simpson

Medical Decision Making, 2012, vol. 32, issue 4, 532-544

Abstract: Objective To test optimal graphic risk communication formats for presenting small probabilities using graphics with a denominator of 1000 to adults with lower education and literacy. Methods A randomized experimental study, which took place in adult basic education classes in Sydney, Australia. The participants were 120 adults with lower education and literacy. An experimental computer-based manipulation compared 1) pictographs in 2 forms, shaded “blocks†and unshaded “dots†; and 2) bar charts across different orientations (horizontal/vertical) and numerator size (small 95%) and not tested further. For the verbatim task, optimal graph type depended on the numerator size. For small numerators, pictographs resulted in fewer errors than bar charts (blocks: odds ratio [OR] = 0.047, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.023–0.098; dots: OR = 0.049, 95% CI = 0.024–0.099). For medium and large numerators, bar charts were more accurate (e.g., medium dots: OR = 4.29, 95% CI = 2.9–6.35). Pictographs were generally processed faster for small numerators (e.g., blocks: 14.9 seconds v. bars: 16.2 seconds) and bar charts for medium or large numerators (e.g., large blocks: 41.6 seconds v. 26.7 seconds). Vertical formats were processed slightly faster than horizontal graphs with no difference in accuracy. Most participants preferred bar charts (64%); however, there was no relationship with performance. Conclusions For adults with low education and literacy, pictographs are likely to be the best format to use when displaying small numerators ( 100/1000).

Keywords: risk communication; graphic formats; health literacy; patient education; decision making; decision aids (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11424926 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:4:p:532-544

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11424926

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().