One-week recall of health risk information and individual differences in attention to bar charts

Health, Risk and Society

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 136-153

  Mason, Dan ^a   Boase, Sue ^a   Marteau, Theresa ^a   Kinmonth, Ann Louise ^a   Dahm, Theresa ^a   Minorikawa, Nami ^a   Sutton, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

graphics; health literacy; health risk; numeracy; risk; risk communication; verbal protocols

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; NURSE; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECALL; RISK ASSESSMENT; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

EID: 84896068183     PISSN: 13698575     EISSN: 14698331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13698575.2014.884544     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ancker, J.S., et al., 2006. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 13 (6), 608-618.
2. Bateman, H., et al., 2006. Acknowledging the contribution of nurses who support quality care through involvement in research studies. Quality in primary care, 14 (2), 71-76.
3. Bogardus, J.S.T., Holmboe, E., and Jekel, J.F., 1999. Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk. JAMA, 281 (11), 1037-1041.
4. Chua, H.F., Yates, J.F., and Shah, P., 2006. Risk avoidance: graphs versus numbers. Memory & cognition, 34 (2), 399-410.
5. Cleveland, W.S. and McGill, R., 1985. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science, 229 (4716), 828-833.
6. Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J., 1996. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58 (1), 1.
7. Cromley, J. and Azevedo, R., 2006. Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: what are we measuring? Metacognition and learning, 1 (3), 229-247.
8. Department of Health, 2002. Liberating the talents - helping primary care trusts and nurses deliver the NHS plan. London: Department of Health.
9. Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., and Mulley, A., 2002. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ, 324 (7341), 827-830.
10. Ericsson, K.A., 1988. Concurrent verbal reports on text comprehension: a review. Text - interdisciplinary journal for the study of discourse, 8 (4), 295-326.
11. Ericsson, K.A., 2006. Protocol analysis and expert thought: concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts' performance on representative tasks. In: K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R.R. Hoffman, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 223-242.
12. Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A., 1993. Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Revised ed. London: Bradford Book.
13. Feldman-Stewart, D., et al., 2000. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Medical decision making, 20 (2), 228-238.
14. Finucane, M.L., 2008. Emotion, affect, and risk communication with older adults: challenges and opportunities. Journal of risk research, 11 (8), 983-997.
15. Fonteyn, M.E., Kuipers, B., and Grobe, S.J., 1993. A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative health research, 3 (4), 430-441.
16. Galesic, M. and Garcia-Retamero, R., 2011. Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Medical decision making, 31 (3), 444-457.
17. Galesic, M., Garcia-Retamero, R., and Gigerenzer, G., 2009. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health psychology, 28 (2), 210-216.
18. Garcia-Retamero, R. and Galesic, M., 2009. Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: a cross-cultural comparison. American journal of public health, 99 (12), 2196-2202.
19. Garcia-Retamero, R. and Galesic, M., 2010a. How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. Journal of general internal medicine, 25 (12), 1323-1329.
20. Garcia-Retamero, R. and Galesic, M., 2010b. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks (corrected). Social science & medicine, 70 (7), 1019-1025.
21. Ghosh, K., et al., 2008. Frequency format diagram and probability chart for breast cancer risk communication: a prospective, randomized trial. BMC womens health, 8, 18.
22. Gilhooly, K. and Green, C., 1996. Protocol analysis: theoretical background. In: J.T.E. Richardson, ed. Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. Leicester: BPS Books, 43-54.
23. Gordon-Lubitz, R.J., 2003. MSJAMA. Risk communication: problems of presentation and understanding. JAMA, 289 (1), 95.
24. Green, C. and Gilhooly, K., 1996. Protocol analysis: practical implementation. In: J.T.E. Richardson ed. Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. Leicester: BPS Books, 55-74.
25. Grimes, D.A. and Snively, G.R., 1999. Patients' understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counseling. Obstetrics and gynecology, 93 (6), 910-914.
26. Hardin, L.E., 2003. Research in medical problem solving: a review. Journal of veterinary medical education, 30 (3), 230-235.
27. Hawley, S.T., et al., 2008. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient education and counseling, 73 (3), 448-455.
28. Johnson, B.B. and Slovic, P., 1995. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk analysis, 15 (4), 485-494.
29. Johnson, C. and Turley, J., 2006. The significance of cognitive modeling in building healthcare interfaces. International journal of medical informatics, 75 (2), 163-172.
30. Keller, C. and Siegrist, M., 2009. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Medical decision making, 29 (4), 483-490.
31. Keller, C., Siegrist, M., and Visschers, V., 2009. Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk analysis, 29 (9), 1255-1264.
32. Kurz-Milcke, E., Gigerenzer, G., and Martignon, L., 2008. Transparency in risk communication: graphical and analog tools. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128, 18-28.
33. Kushniruk, A.W. and Patel, V.L., 1998. Cognitive evaluation of decision making processes and assessment of information technology in medicine. International journal of medical informatics, 51 (2-3), 83-90.
34. Lafortune, G. and OECD, 2004. Towards high-performing health systems: policy studies. Paris: OECD.
35. Lee, D.H. and Mehta, M.D., 2003. Evaluation of a visual risk communication tool: effects on knowledge and perception of blood transfusion risk. Transfusion, 43 (6), 779-787.
36. Lipkus, I., Samsa, G., and Rimer, B., 2001. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical decision making, 21 (1), 37-44.
37. Lipkus, I.M., 2007. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical decision making, 27 (5), 696-713.
38. Moore, R.A., et al., 2008. What do we know about communicating risk? A brief review and suggestion for contextualising serious, but rare, risk, and the example of cox-2 selective and non-selective NSAIDs. Arthritis research & therapy, 10 (1), R20.
39. Nelson, W., et al., 2008. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Annals of behavioral medicine, 35 (3), 261-274.
40. Peters, E., 2008. Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128, 1-7.
41. Peters, E., et al., 2006. Numeracy and decision making. Psychological science, 17 (5), 407-413.
42. Pinker, S., 1990. A theory of graph comprehension. In: R.O. Freedle, ed. Artificial intelligence and the future of testing. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, 73-126.
43. Russo, J.E., Johnson, E.J., and Stephens, D.L., 1989. The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & cognition, 17 (6), 759-769.
44. Schapira, M.M., Nattinger, A.B., and McAuliffe, T.L., 2006. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. Journal of health communication, 11 (6), 569-582.
45. Shah, P. and Hoeffner, J., 2002. Review of graph comprehension research: implications for instruction. Educational psychology review, 14 (1), 47-69.
46. Siegrist, M., Orlow, P., and Keller, C., 2008. The effect of graphical and numerical presentation of hypothetical prenatal diagnosis results on risk perception. Medical decision making, 28 (4), 567-574.
47. Smerecnik, C., et al., 2009. A systematic review of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy. Journal of genetic counseling, 18 (3), 217-228.
48. Stone, E., Yates, J., and Parker, A., 1997. Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. Journal of experimental psychology applied, 3 (4), 243.
49. Sutherland, L.A., et al., 2001. Development of an adaptive multimedia program to collect patient health data. American journal of preventive medicine, 21 (4), 320-324.
50. Trafton, G. and Trickett, S., 2001. A new model of graph visualization and usage. In: J.D. Moore and K. Stenning, eds. Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1048-1053.
51. Trevena, L.J., et al., 2006. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 12 (1), 13-23.
52. Wright, A.J., et al., 2009. The impact of numeracy on reactions to different graphic risk presentation formats: an experimental analogue study. British journal of health psychology, 14 (1), 107-125.
53. Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., et al., 2008. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient education and counseling, 73 (2), 209-214.