Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: A risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 13, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2013, Pages

  Trevena, Lyndal J ^a   Zikmund Fisher, Brian J ^b   Edwards, Adrian ^c   Gaissmaier, Wolfgang ^d   Galesic, Mirta ^e   Han, Paul K J ^f   King, John ^g   Lawson, Margaret L ^h   Linder, Suzanne K ⁱ   Lipkus, Isaac ^j   Ozanne, Elissa ^k   Peters, Ellen ^l   Timmermans, Danielle ^m   Woloshin, Steven ⁿ  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^e MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^f MAINE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^h CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^j DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^l OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^m VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

ⁿ VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HUMAN; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; RISK;

CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; RISK;

EID: 84889677021     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7     Document Type: Article

References (144)

1. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Sackett D, Rosenberg W, Muir Gray J, Haynes R, Richardson W, BMJ 1996 312 71 72 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 8555924
2. Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice. Haynes R, Devereaux P, Guyatt G, Evid Based Med 2002 7 36 38 10.1136/ebm.7.2.36 (Pubitemid 34411278)
3. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P, J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 1 13 23 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00596.x 16422776 (Pubitemid 43219515)
4. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Legare F, Thomson R, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 10 D001431 21975733
5. What are natural frequencies? Gigerenzer G, BMJ 2011 343 10.1136/bmj.d6386 22006953
6. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Psychol Sci Public Interest 2007 8 2 53 96
7. Why do single event probabilities confuse patients? Statements of frequency are better for communicating risk. Gigerenzer G, Galesic M, BMJ 2012 344 245 10.1136/bmj.e245 22236599
8. Informing Patients: the Influence of Numeracy, Framing and Format of Side Effect information on Risk Perceptions. Peters E, Hart PS, Fraenkel L, Med Decis Making 2011 31 3 432 436 10.1177/0272989X10391672 21191122
9. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment. Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Ann Intern Med 2011 155 2 87 96 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190- 00004 21768582
10. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Cuite C, Weinstein N, Emmons K, Colditz G, Med Decis Making 2008 28 3 377 384 10.1177/0272989X08315246 18480036 (Pubitemid 351713304)
11. The 1-in-X effect on the subjective assessment of medical probabilities. Pighin S, Savadori L, Barilli E, Cremonesi L, Ferrari M, Bonnefon J-F, Med Decis Making 2011 31 5 721 729 10.1177/0272989X11403490 21512187
12. Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Patient Educ Couns 2011 84 2 245 250 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.027 20728298
13. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Akl E, Oxman A, Herrin J, Vist G, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Costiniuk C, Blank D, Schünemann H, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 3 D006776 21412897
14. A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Covey J, Med Decis Making 2007 27 5 638 654 10.1177/0272989X07306783 17873250 (Pubitemid 47547599)
15. Different ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments. Halvorsen P, Selmer R, Kristiansen I, Ann Intern Med 2007 146 12 848 856 10.7326/0003-4819-146-12-200706190-00006 17577004 (Pubitemid 351650485)
16. Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: Incremental risk versus total risk occurrence. Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Roberts T, Derry H, Ubel P, J Health Commun 2008 13 2 107 124 10.1080/10810730701854011 18300064 (Pubitemid 351304461)
17. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Welch H, Ann Intern Med 2009 150 8 516 527 10.7326/0003-4819-150- 8-200904210-00106 19221371
18. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: The debiasing influence of pictographs. Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Smith D, Derry H, McClure J, Stark A, Pitsch R, Fagerlin A, Patient Educ Couns 2008 73 2 209 214 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.010 18602242
19. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. Malenka D, Baron J, Johansen S, Wahrenberger J, Ross J, J Gen Intern Med 1993 8 10 543 548 10.1007/BF02599636 8271086 (Pubitemid 23312931)
20. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Naylor C, Chen E, Strauss B, Ann Intern Med 1992 117 11 916 921 10.7326/0003-4819-117-11-916 1443954
21. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Tversky A, Kahneman D, Science 1981 211 4481 453 458 10.1126/science.7455683 7455683 (Pubitemid 11145313)
22. Describing treatment effects to patients. Moxey A, O'Connell D, McGettigan P, Henry D, J Gen Intern Med 2003 18 11 948 959 10.1046/j.1525-1497. 2003.20928.x 14687282 (Pubitemid 37510625)
23. Communicating statistical information. Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G, Science 2000 290 5500 2261 2262 10.1126/science.290.5500.2261 11188724 (Pubitemid 32041554)
24. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U, Psychol Rev 1995 102 4 684 704
25. Representation facilitates reasoning: what natural frequencies are and what they are not. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G, Krauss S, Martignon L, Cognition 2002 84 3 343 352 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00050-1 12044739 (Pubitemid 34580615)
26. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Stacey D, Bennett C, Barry M, Col N, Eden K, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001 10 CD001431 21975733
27. Does evidence-based information about screening for prostate cancer enhance consumer decision-making? A randomised controlled trial. Gattellari M, Ward J, J Med Screen 2003 10 1 27 39 10.1258/096914103321610789 12790313 (Pubitemid 36560965)
28. Computerised prenatal genetic testing decision-assisting tool. Kuppermann M, Norton M, Gates E, Gregorich S, Learman L, Nakagawa S, Feldstein V, Lewis J, Washington A, Nease RF J, Obstet Gynecol 2009 113 1 53 63 19104360
29. The effect of an illustrated pamphlet decision-aid on the use of prostate cancer screening tests. Schapira M, VanRuiswyk J, J Fam Pract 2000 49 5 418 424 10836772 (Pubitemid 30464022)
30. Does informed consent alter elderly patients' preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial. Wolf A, Schorling J, J Gen Intern Med 2000 15 1 24 30 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.01079.x 10632830 (Pubitemid 30060935)
31. Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing. Lerman C, Biesecker B, Benkendorf J, Kerner J, Gomez-Caminero A, Hughes C, Reed M, J Natl Cancer Inst 1997 89 2 148 157 10.1093/jnci/89.2.148 8998184 (Pubitemid 27034791)
32. The risk of death by age, sex, and smoking status in the United States: Putting health risks in context. Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Welch H, J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 100 845 853 10.1093/jnci/djn124 18544745 (Pubitemid 351881950)
33. Bringing meaning to numbers: The impact of evaluative categories on decisions. Peters E, Dieckmann N, Vastfjall D, Mertz C, Slovic P, Hibbard J, J Exp Psycho App 2009 15 3 213 227 19751072
34. Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman's responses? Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Keeton K, Ubel P, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007 197 5 528.e521 528.e526
35. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Han P, Klein W, Arora N, Med Decis Making 2011 31 6 828 838 22067431
36. Use of meta-analytic results to facilitate shared decision making. Lenert L, Cher D, J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999 6 5 412 419 10.1136/jamia.1999.0060412 10495100 (Pubitemid 29426721)
37. BRCA1 testing: Genetic counseling protocol development and counseling issues. Baty B, Venne V, McDonald J, Croyle R, Halls C, Nash J, Botkin J, J Genet Couns 1997 6 2 223 244 10.1023/A:1025620404473 (Pubitemid 127716877)
38. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Schapira M, Nattinger A, McHorney C, Med Decis Making 2001 21 6 459 467 11760103 (Pubitemid 33070851)
39. Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: Effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk. Han P, Klein W, Killam B, Lehman T, Massett H, Freedman A, Patient Educ Couns 2012 86 1 106 113 10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.033 21377311
40. Effects of game-like interactive graphics on risk perceptions and decisions. Ancker J, Weber E, Kukafka R, Med Decis Making 2011 31 1 130 142 10.1177/0272989X10364847 20393103
41. Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: Effects and influential factors. Han P, Klein W, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman A, Med Decis Making 2011 31 2 354 366 10.1177/ 0272989X10371830 20671211
42. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Lipkus I, Klein W, Rimer B, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001 10 8 895 898 11489757 (Pubitemid 32738603)
43. Communicating hospital infection data to the public: A study of consumer responses and preferences. Mazor K, Dodd K, Kunches L, Am J Med Qual 2009 24 2 108 115 19237552
44. Communicating population health statistics through graphs: A randomised controlled trial of graph design interventions. Muscatello DJ, Searles A, Macdonald R, J L, BMC Med 4 1 33 17178006
45. Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates. Han P, Klein W, Lehman T, Massett H, Lee S, Freedman A, Med Decis Making 2009 29 3 391 403 10.1177/0272989X08327396 19470720
46. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Ellsberg D, Q J Econ 1961 75 643 669 10.2307/1884324
47. Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Camerer C, Weber M, J Risk Uncertain 1992 5 4 325 370 10.1007/BF00122575
48. Communicating uncertainty: Framing effects on responses to vague probabilities. Kuhn K, Organ Behav Hum Dec 1997 71 55 83 10.1006/obhd.1997.2715 (Pubitemid 127175808)
49. Communication of ambiguous risk information. Viscusi W, Magat W, Huber J, Theor Decis 1991 31 2 159 173
50. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Gigerenzer G, Med Decis Making 2010 30 6 672 684 10.1177/ 0272989X10369000 20484088
51. Effective communication of risks to young adults: Using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely E, J Exp Psycho App 2011 17 3 270 21942316
52. How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, J Gen Intern Med 2010 25 12 1323 1329 10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9 20737295
53. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel P, Med Decis Making 2005 25 4 398 405 10.1177/0272989X05278931 16061891 (Pubitemid 41023166)
54. Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Barbey A, Sloman S, Beh Brain Sci 2007 30 241 97 17963533
55. Frequency illusions and other fallacies. Sloman SA, Over D, Slovak L, Stibel J, Organ Behav Hum Dec 2003 91 2 296 309 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00021-9 (Pubitemid 36952878)
56. Pictorial representations in statistical reasoning. Brase G, Appl Cognitive Psych 2009 23 3 369 381 10.1002/acp.1460
57. Comparing the standard rating scale and the magnifier scale for assessing risk perceptions. Gurmankin A, Helweg-Larsen M, Armstrong K, Kimmel S, Volpp K, Med Decis Making 2005 25 5 560 570 10.1177/0272989X05280560 16160211 (Pubitemid 41384069)
58. A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study. Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Byram S, Fischhoff B, Welch H, Med Decis Making 2000 20 3 298 307 10.1177/0272989X0002000306 10929852 (Pubitemid 30470725)
59. Strategies to help patients understand risks. Paling J, BMJ 2003 327 7417 745 748 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.745 14512489 (Pubitemid 37176764)
60. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I, Science 2011 333 6048 1393 1400 10.1126/science.1191181 21903802
61. Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Med Decis Making 2011 31 444 457 10.1177/0272989X10373805 20671213
62. Who profits from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Soc Sci Med 2010 70 7 1019 1025 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.031 20116159
63. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks to low-numeracy people. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G, Health Psychol 2009 28 2 210 216 19290713
64. Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: A cross-cultural comparison. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Am J Public Health 2009 99 12 2196 2202 10.2105/AJPH.2009.160234 19833983
65. Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: Individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Gaissmaier W, Wegwarth O, Skopec D, Müller A-S, Broschinski S, Politi M, Health Psychol 2012 31 3 286 296 21842998
66. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell B, Brundage M, Mackillop W, Med DecisMaking 2000 20 2 228 238 10772360 (Pubitemid 30198752)
67. A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy-trace theory. Reyna V, Med Decis Making 2008 28 6 829 833 10.1177/0272989X08327069 19020341
68. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Hawley S, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jankovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A, Patient Educ Couns 2008 73 3 448 455 10.1016/j.pec.2008. 07.023 18755566
69. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Lipkus I, Med Decis Making 2007 27 5 696 713 10.1177/0272989X07307271 17873259 (Pubitemid 47547606)
70. The visual communication of risk. Lipkus I, Hollands J, J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999 25 149 163 10854471
71. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P, Cancer 2008 113 12 3382 3390 10.1002/cncr.23959 19012353
72. A demonstration of ''less can be more'' in risk graphics. Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P, Med Decis Making 2010 30 6 661 671 10.1177/ 0272989X10364244 20375419
73. Effect of arrangement of stick figures on estimates of proportion in risk graphics. Ancker J, Weber E, Kukafka R, Med Decis Making 2011 31 1 143 150 10.1177/0272989X10369006 20671209
74. Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. Stone E, Yates J, Parker A, J Exp Psychol Appl 1997 3 4 243 256 (Pubitemid 127462888)
75. Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Stone E, Sieck W, Bull B, Yates J, Parks S, Rush C, Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 2003 90 1 19 36 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00003-7 (Pubitemid 36556635)
76. The Influence of Graphic Display Formaton the Interpretations of Quantitative Risk Information among Adultswith Lower Education and Literacy: A Randomized Experimental Study. McCaffery K, Dixon A, Hayen A, Jansen J, Smith S, Simpson J, Med Decis Making 2012 32 532 544 10.1177/0272989X11424926 22074912
77. Transparency in risk communication: Graphical and analog tools. Kurz-Milcke E, Gigerenzer G, Martignon L, Strategies for risk communication: Evolution, evidence, experience New York: Blackwell, Tucker W, Ferson S, Finkel A, Long T, Slavin D, Wright P, 2008 1128 18 28 18469211 (Pubitemid 351652572)
78. Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Shah P, Hoeffner J, Educ Psychol Rev 2002 14 1 47 69 10.1023/A:1013180410169 (Pubitemid 37134417)
79. Graph Design for the Eye and Mind. Kosslyn S, New York: Oxford University Press 2006
80. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behaviour change interventions. Noar S, Benac C, Harris M, Psychol Bull 2007 133 673 693 17592961
81. A randomized trial of generic versus tailored interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among intermediate risk siblings. Manne S, Coups E, Markowitz A, Meropol N, Haller D, J P, Jandorf L, Peterson S, Lesko S, Pilipshen S, et al. Ann Behav Med 2009 37 207 217 10.1007/s12160-009-9103-x 19418107
82. Tailored information about cancer risk and screening: A systematic review. Albada A, Ausems M, Bensing J, Van Dulmen S, Patient Educ Couns 2009 77 155 171 10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.005 19376676
83. Mammography screening after risk-tailored messages: The Women Improving Screening through Education and Risk Assessment (WISER) randomized, controlled trial. Bodurtha J, Quillin J, Tracy K, Borzelleca J, McClish D, Wilson D, Jones R, Quillin J, Bowen D, J Womens Health 2009 18 41 47 10.1089/jwh.2007.0703
84. The importance of high-quality evidence of the long-term impact of nonfatal events used in randomized controlled trials: a case study of Parasugrel. Lu C, Karon J, Sorich M, Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011 90 1 27 29 10.1038/clpt.2011.61 21691272
85. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Prasugrel for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes with percutaneous coronary intervention. NICE, NICE technology appraisal guidance 182 London, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009
86. Empirically evaluating decision-analytic models. Goldhaber-Fiebert J, Stout N, Goldie S, Value Health 2010 13 5 667 674 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010. 00698.x 20230547
87. Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines. Stout N, Knudsen A, Kong C, McMahon P, Gazelle G, Pharmacoeconomics 2009 27 533 545 10.2165/11314830-000000000-00000 19663525
88. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. Tunis S, Stryer D, Clancy C, JAMA 2003 290 12 1624 1632 10.1001/jama.290.12.1624 14506122 (Pubitemid 37430387)
89. Coverage with evidence development: The Ontario experience. Levin L, Goeree R, Levine M, Krahn M, Easty T, Brown A, Henry D, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001 27 2 159 168
90. Statin Choice. Mayo Knowledge and Encounter Research Unit, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine. http://shareddecisions.mayoclinic.org/decision-aids-for- diabetes/cardiovascular-prevention/
91. What can you do to prevent HPV and cervical cancer?: A decision aid for parents/guardians of girls in grade 8 in Ontario. Bennett C, Drake E, Hopkins L, O'Connor A, Canadian Institute of Health 2009 http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/ das/HPV-vaccine.pdf
92. Heart disease: Should I have bypass surgery? https://www.healthwise.net/ cochranedecisionaid/Content/StdDocument.aspx?DOCHWID=av2037
93. When your lung function is getting worse: Should you be referred for a lung transplant? A decision aid for adults with cystic fibrosis. Vandemheen K, Aaron S, Tullis E, Poirier C, 2009 http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/das/CF-group- a.pdf
94. What's time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P, Risk Analysis 2005 25 3 589 595 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00626.x 16022692 (Pubitemid 41133002)
95. Mortality versus survival graphs: Improving temporal consistency in perception of treatment effectiveness. Zikmund-Fisher B, Fagerlin A, Ubel P, Patient Educ Couns 2007 66 100 107 10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.013 17137743 (Pubitemid 46366614)
96. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: Survival and mortality curves. Armstrong K, Schwartz J, Fitzergald G, Putt M, Ubel P, Med Decis Making 2002 22 76 83 11833668 (Pubitemid 34087693)
97. Understanding patients' decisions: Cognitive and emotional perspectives. Redelmeier D, Rozin P, Kahneman D, JAMA 1993 270 1 72 76 10.1001/jama.1993. 03510010078034 8510300 (Pubitemid 23202655)
98. Communicating the results of randomized clinical trials: Do patients understand multidimensional patient-reported outcomes? McNair A, Brookes S, Davis C, Argyropoulos M, Blazeby J, J Clin Oncol 2010 28 738 743 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.9111 20065187
99. What do men understand about lifetime risk following genetic testing? The effect of context and numeracy. Rolison J, Hanoch Y, Miron-Shatz T, Health Psychol 2012 31 4 530 3 doi: 10.1037/a0026562 22149122
100. BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing. National Cancer Institue, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA
101. Decision Aids. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, http://musculoskeletal. cochrane.org/decision-aids
102. Making Decisions: Should I use hormone replacement therapy? (HRT). Sydney Health Decision Group, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/-files-nhmrc/publications/ attachments/wh37.pdf
103. Achilles tendon rupture: Should I have surgery? Healthwise, https://www.healthwise.net/cochranedecisionaid/Content/StdDocument.aspx?DOCHWID= ug2998
104. Heart Failure: Should I get a Pacemaker (Cardiac Resychronization Therapy)? Healthwise, https://www.healthwise.net/cochranedecisionaid/Content/ StdDocument.aspx?DOCHWID=uf9843
105. Birth control. Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth- control/MY01182
106. The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks. Betsch C, Ulshofer C, Renkewitz F, Betsch T, Med Decis Making 2011 31 5 742 53 10.1177/0272989X11400419 21447730
107. The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: effects on treatment choices. Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J, Med Decis Making 2001 21 1 60 68 10.1177/0272989X0102100108 11206948 (Pubitemid 32245032)
108. All stories are not alike: A purpose-, content-, and valence-based taxonomy of patient narratives in decision aids. Shaffer V, Zikmund-Fisher B, Med Decis Making 2013 33 1 4 13 10.1177/0272989X12463266 23065418
109. Understanding the role of numeracy in health: proposed theoretical framework and practical insights. Lipkus I, Peters E, Health Educ Behav 2009 36 1065 1081 10.1177/1090198109341533 19834054
110. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Reyna V, Nelson W, Han P, Dieckmann N, Psychol Bull 2009 135 943 973 19883143
111. Breast cancer patients' treatment expectations after exposure to the decision aid program adjuvant online: the influence of numeracy. Lipkus I, Peters E, Kimmick G, Liotcheva V, Marcom P, Med Decis Making 2010 30 464 473 10.1177/0272989X09360371 20160070
112. The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decisionmakers varying in numeracy. Dieckmann NF, Slovic P, Peters EM, Risk Anal 2009 29 10 1473 1488 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01279.x 19671102
113. Communicating consequences of risky behaviors: Life expectancy versus risk of disease. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Patient Educ Couns 2011 82 30 35 10.1016/j.pec.2010.02.008 20219316
114. Colon cancer: risk perceptions and risk communication. Weinstein N, Atwood K, Puleo E, Fletcher R, Colditz G, Emmons K, J Health Commun 2004 9 53 65 10.1080/10810730490271647 14761833 (Pubitemid 38353253)
115. Women's perceptions of breast cancer risk: How you ask matters. Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Black W, Welch H, Med Decis Making 1999 19 221 229 10.1177/0272989X9901900301 10424829 (Pubitemid 29321264)
116. Numeracy and decision making. Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz C, Mazzocco K, Dickert S, Psychol Sci 2006 17 407 413 10.1111/j.1467-9280. 2006.01720.x 16683928 (Pubitemid 43657915)
117. The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once. Zikmund-Fisher B, Angott A, Ubel P, Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011 129 79 87 10.1007/s10549-010-1193-4 20945090
118. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Reyna VF, Brainerd C, Learn Individ Differ 2008 18 89 107 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.011
119. Beyond comprehension: The role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Peters E, Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2012 21 31 10.1177/0963721411429960
120. Statistical numeracy for health: A cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Arch Intern Med 2010 170 462 468 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.481 20212183
121. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Lipkus I, Samsa G, Rimer B, Med Decis Making 2001 21 37 44 11206945 (Pubitemid 32245029)
122. Consumer competencies and the use of comparative quality information: It isn't just about literacy. Hibbard J, Peters E, Dixon A, Tusler M, Med Care Res Rev 2007 64 4 379 394 10.1177/1077558707301630 17684108 (Pubitemid 47084215)
123. Explaining the effect of education on health: A field study in Ghana. Peters E, Baker D, Dieckmann N, Leon J, Collins J, Psychol Sci 2010 21 10 1369 1376 10.1177/0956797610381506 20739672
124. Evaluation of consistency in dosing directions and measuring devices for pediatric nonprescription liquid medications. Yin H, Wolf M, Dreyer B, Sanders L, Parker R, JAMA 2010 304 23 2595 2602 10.1001/jama.2010.1797 21119074
125. Parental understanding of infant health information: Health literacy, numeracy, and the Parental Health Literacy Activities Test (PHLAT). Kumar D, Sanders L, Perrin E, Lokker N, Patterson B, Gunn V, Finkle J, Franco V, Choi L, Rothman R, AcadPediatr 2010 10 5 309 316 20674532
126. Measuring risk literacy: the Berlin Numeracy Test. Cokely E, Galesic M, Schulz E, Garcia-Retamero R, Judgm Decis Mak 2012 7 35 47
127. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. Liberali J, Reyna V, Furlan S, Stein L, Pardo S, J Beh Dec Mak 2012 25 361 381 10.1002/bdm.752
128. Mathematical expertise. Butterworth B, Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance Cambridge: CUP, Ericsson K, 2006 553 568
129. The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Stigler J, Gonzales P, Kawanaka T, Knoll S, Serrano A, US Dept of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC, 1999
130. Adult age differences in dual information processes: Implications for the role of affective and deliberative processes in older adults' decision making. Peters E, Hess T, Västfjäll D, Auman C, Perspect Psychol Sci 2007 2 1 1 23 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00025.x
131. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Kahan D, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette L, Braman D, Mandel G, Nature Clim Change 2012 2 732 745 10.1038/nclimate1547
132. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Lipkus IM, Med Decis Making 2007 27 5 696 713 10.1177/0272989X07307271 17873259 (Pubitemid 47547606)
133. Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS): Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Zikmund-Fisher B, Smith D, Ubel P, Fagerlin A, Med Decis Making 2007 27 663 671 10.1177/0272989X07303824 17652180 (Pubitemid 47547593)
134. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Black W, Welch G, Ann Intern Med 1997 127 966 971 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003 9412301
135. The Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument:: A measure of health numeracy developed using item response theory. Schapira M, Walker C, Cappaert K, Ganschow P, Fletcher K, McGinley E, Del Pozo S, Schauer C, Tarima S, Jacobs E, Med Decis Making 2012 32 852 865
136. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach. Weller J, Dieckmann N, Tusler M, Mertz C, Burns W, Peters E, J Beh Dec Mak 2012 26 2 198 212
137. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jankovic A, Derry H, Smith D, Med Decis Making 2007 27 672 680 10.1177/0272989X07304449 17641137 (Pubitemid 47547594)
138. The meaning and the measure of health literacy. Baker W, J Gen Intern Med 2006 21 878 883 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00540.x 16881951 (Pubitemid 44024937)
139. Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Welch G, Medical Decision Making 2005 25 290 300 10.1177/0272989X05276860 15951456 (Pubitemid 40696278)
140. Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Natter H, Berry D, Appl Cogn Psychol 2005 19 123 135 10.1002/acp.1068 (Pubitemid 40124129)
141. Interactive graphics for expressing health risks: development and qualitative evaluation. Ancker J, Chan C, Kukafka R, J Health Commun 2009 14 5 461 475 10.1080/10810730903032960 19657926
142. Animation: can it facilitate? Tversky B, Morrison J, Betrancourt M, Int J Hum Comput Stud 2002 57 247 262 10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017
143. Cool but counterproductive: interactive web-based risk communications can backfire. Zikmund-Fisher B, Dickson M, Witteman H, J Med Internet Res 2011 13 3 60 doi:10.2196/jmir.1665 10.2196/jmir.1665 21868349
144. Animated graphics for comparing two risks: a cautionary tale. Zikmund-Fisher B, Witteman H, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Exe N, Kahn V, Dickson M, J Med Internet Res 2012 14 4 106 doi: 110.2196/jmir.2030 10.2196/jmir.2030 22832208