Simple tools for understanding risks: From innumeracy to insight

British Medical Journal

Volumn 327, Issue 7417, 2003, Pages 741-744

  Gigerenzer, Gerd ^a   Edwards, Adrian ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; DECISION MAKING; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0141596114     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med 1998;73:538-40.
2. Gigerenzer G. Reckoning with risk: learning to live with uncertainty. London: Penguin, 2002. (Published in the United States as Calculated risks: how to know when numbers deceive you. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002.)
3. Slaytor EK, Ward JE. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. BMJ 1998;317:263-4.
4. Casscells W, Schoenberger A, Grayboys T. Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. N Engl J Med 1978;299:999-1000.
5. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psych Rev 1995;102:684-704.
6. Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G. Communicating statistical information. Science 2000;290:2261-2.
7. Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ 2003;327:745-8.
8. Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, Crotry TP, Myers JL, Arnold PG, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:77-84.
9. Sarfati D, Howden-Chapman P, Woodward A, Salmond C. Does the frame affect the picture? A study into how attitudes to screening for cancer are affected by the way benefits are expressed. J Med Screen 1998;5:137-40.
10. Wright P. Document-based decision-making. In: Rouet JF, Levonen A, Biardeau A, eds. Multimedia learning: cognitive and instructional issues. Amsterdam: Pergamon, 2001:31-43.
11. Nyström L, Larsson L-G, Wall S, Rurqvist L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. An overview of the Swedish randomised mammography trials: total mortality pattern and the representativity of the study cohorts. J Med Screen 1996;3:85-7.
12. Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ. Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 1995;311:1056-9.
13. Heller RF, Dobson AJ. Disease impact number and population impact number: population perspectives to measures of risk and benefit. BMJ 2000;321:950-3.
14. Wilson DK, Purdon SE, Wallston KA. Compliance to health recommendations: a theoretical overview of message framing. Health Educ Res 1988;3:161-71.
15. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979;47:263-91.
16. Edwards AGK, Elwyn GJ, Covey J, Mathews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information: a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 2001;6:61-82.
17. Kühberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1998;75:23-55.
18. Edwards AGK, Elwyn GJ, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ 2002;324:827-30.
19. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;25:149-62.
20. Woloshin S, Schwartz L. How can we help people make sense of medical data? Eff Clin Prac 1999;2:176-183.
21. Schapira M, Nattinger A, McHorney C. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making 2001;21:459-67.
22. Mazur D, Hickam DH. Assumptions patients make when interpreting graphical displays of surgical data. Theor Surg 1994;9:129-33.
23. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, the ABC Research Group. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
24. Cosmides L, Tooby J. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 1996;58:1-73.