The effect of graphical and numerical presentation of hypothetical prenatal diagnosis results on risk perception

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 567-574

  Siegrist, Michael ^a   Orlow, Pascale ^a   Keller, Carmen ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Prenatal tests; Risk communication; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; DOWN SYNDROME; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NORMAL HUMAN; PALING PERSPECTIVE SCALE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDENT;

ADULT; COMMUNICATION; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMANS; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 47249114012     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315237     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Edwards A., Elwyn G., Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ. 2002 ; 324: 827-30.
2. Gigerenzer G., Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. 2003 ; 327: 741-4.
3. Gigerenzer G., Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev. 1995 ; 102: 684-704.
4. Siegrist M. Communicating low risk magnitudes: incidence rates expressed as frequency versus rates expressed as probability. Risk Anal. 1997 ; 17: 507-10.
5. Hoffrage U., Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med. 1998 ; 73: 538-40.
6. Hoffrage U., Lindsey S., Hertwig R., Gigerenzer G. Communicating statistical information. Science. 2000 ; 290: 2261-2.
7. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA, Frequency or probability ? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001 ; 21: 459-67.
8. Bramwell R., West H., Salmon P. Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study. BMJ. 2006 ; 333: 284A - 6A.
9. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun. 2006 ; 11: 167-82.
10. Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003 ; 327: 745-8.
11. Singh AD, Paling J. Informed consent: putting risks into perspectives. Surv Ophthalmol. 1997 ; 42: 83-6.
12. Stallings SP, Paling JE New tool for presenting risk in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 ; 98: 345-9.
13. Feldman-Stewart D., Brundage MD, Zotov V. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2000 ; 20: 228-38.
14. MacGregor DG, Slovic P. Graphic representation of judgmental information. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 1986 ; 2: 179-200.
15. Finucane ML, Peters E., Slovic P. Judgment and decision making: the dance of affect and reason. In: Schneider SL, Shanteau J, eds. Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press ; 2003. p 327-64. 16. Stone ER, Yates JF, Parker AM Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1997 ; 3: 243-56.
16. Schirillo JA, Stone ER The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Anal. 2005 ; 25: 555-66.
17. Stone ER, Sieck WR, Bull BE, Frank Yates J., Parks SC, Rush CJ Foreground:background salience: explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2003 ; 90: 19-36.
18. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y., Kukafka R., Starren JB Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 ; 13: 608-18.
19. Smith-Bindman R., Hosmer W., Feldstein VA, Deeks JJ, Gold-berg JD Second-trimester ultrasound to detect fetuses with Down syndrome. JAMA. 2001 ; 285: 1044-55.
20. Siegrist M., Cousin ME, Keller C. Risk communication, prenatal screening, and prenatal diagnosis: the illusion of informed decision making. J Risk Res. Unpublished.
21. Holzgreve W., Kuhn P., Miny P., et al. Vorgeburtliche Risikoerfassung für Chromosomenanomalien. Gynäkologie. 2004 ; 2: 10-1.
22. Gates EA Communicating risk in prenatal genetic testing. J Midwife Womens Health. 2004 ; 49: 220-7.
23. Fagerlin A., Wang C., Ubel PA Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics ? Med Decis Making. 2005 ; 25: 398-405.
24. Hsee CK Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. J Behav Decis Making. 1998 ; 11: 107-21.
25. Hsee CK The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Human Decis Process. 1996 ; 67: 247-57.
26. Davey HM, Butow PN, Armstrong BK Cancer patients' preferences for written prognostic information provided outside the clinical context. Br J Cancer. 2003 ; 89: 1450-6.
27. Johnson BB, Slovic P. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Anal. 1995 ; 15: 485-94.
28. Lee DH, Mehta MD Evaluation of a visual risk communication tool: effects on knowledge and perception of blood transfusion risk. Transfusion. 2003 ; 43: 779-87.
29. Sandman PM, Weinstein ND, Miller P. High risk or low: how location on a ''risk ladder'' affects perceived risk. Risk Anal. 1994 ; 14: 35-45.
30. Roth E., Morgan G., Fischhoff B., Lave L., Bostrum A. What do we know about making risk comparisons ? Risk Anal. 1990 ; 10: 375-87.
31. Slovic P., Kraus N., Covello VT What should we know about making risk comparisons ? Risk Anal. 1990 ; 10: 389-92.
32. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S., Welch HG Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Med Decis Making. 2005 ; 25: 290-300.