Blocks, ovals, or people? Icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 443-453

  Zikmund Fisher, Brian J ^a   Witteman, Holly O ^a,b,c   Dickson, Mark ^a,d   Fuhrel Forbis, Andrea ^a   Kahn, Valerie C ^a   Exe, Nicole L ^a   Valerio, Melissa ^a,e   Holtzman, Lisa G ^a,f   Scherer, Laura D ^a,g   Fagerlin, Angela ^a,h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^c LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d Sitesteaders Development   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f ReThink Health   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^h VA ANN ARBOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

decision aids; patient education as topic; patient provider communication; risk; visual aids

Indexed keywords

CHOLESTEROL;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ART; BLOOD; BLOOD PRESSURE; BODY MASS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SOCIOECONOMICS;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ART; BLOOD PRESSURE; BODY MASS INDEX; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CHOLESTEROL; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 84899577496     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13511706     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, et al. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 ; 73 (3). 448-55
2. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, et al. The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010 ; 15 (5). 487-501
3. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009 ; 28 (2). 210-6
4. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks. Soc Sci Med. 2010 ; 70 (7). 1019-25
5. 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 (4). 398-405
6. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Gigerenzer G. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect?. Med Decis Making. 2010 ; 30 (6). 672-84
7. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 ; 73 (2). 209-14
8. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, et al. Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007 ; 13 (1). 11-21
9. Stone ER, Yates JF, Parker AM. Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1997 ; 3 (4). 243-56
10. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer. 2008 ; 113 (12). 3382-90
11. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. A demonstration of "less can be more" in risk graphics. Med Decis Making. 2010 ; 30 (6). 661-71
12. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Angott AM, Ubel PA. The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 ; 129 (1). 79-87
13. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, et al. Presenting research risks and benefits to parents: does format matter?. Anesth Analg. 2010 ; 111 (3). 718-23
14. Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, et al. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2000 ; 20 (2). 228-38
15. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2007 ; 27 (1). 34-43
16. Garcia-Retamero R, Dhami MK. Pictures speak louder than numbers: on communicating medical risks to immigrants with limited non-native language proficiency. Health Expect. 2011 ; 1: 46-57
17. Okan Y, Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET, et al. Individual differences in graph literacy: overcoming denominator neglect in risk comprehension. J Behav Decis Mak. 2012 ; 25 (4). 390-401
18. Price M, Cameron R, Butow P. Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception - accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 ; 69 (1-3). 121-8
19. Wright AJ, Whitwell SCL, Takeichi C, et al. The impact of numeracy on reactions to different graphic risk presentation formats: an experimental analogue study. Br J Health Psychol. 2009 ; 14 (Pt 1). 107-25
20. McCaffery KJ, Dixon A, Hayen A, et al. The Influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy a randomized experimental study. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (4). 532-44
21. HessRVisschersVHMSiegristM. Risk communication with pictographs: the role of numeracy and graph processing. Judgm Decis Mak. 2011;6(3):263-74. Available from: URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/11/10630/jdm10630.pdf
22. Carling CLL, Kristoffersen DT, Flottorp S, et al. The effect of alternative graphical displays used to present the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat on decisions about whether to seek treatment: a randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2009 ; 6 (8). e1000140
23. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ. 2002 ; 324: 827-30
24. Edwards A, Thomas R, Williams R, et al. Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 ; 63 (3). 336-49
25. Fortin JM, Hirota LK, Bond BE, et al. Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001 ; 1: 2
26. Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Killam B, et al. Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 ; 86 (1). 106-13
27. Brase GL. Pictorial representations in statistical reasoning. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2009 ; 23 (3). 369-81
28. Brown SM, Culver JO, Osann KE, et al. Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates. Patient Educ Couns. 2011 ; 83 (1). 92-8
29. Ghosh K, Crawford BJ, Pruthi S, et al. Frequency format diagram and probability chart for breast cancer risk communication: a prospective, randomized trial. BMC Womens Health. 2008 ; 8: 18
30. Kasper J, Heesen C, Köpke S, et al. Why not? Communicating stochastic information by use of unsorted frequency pictograms - a randomised controlled trial. Psychosoc Med. 2011 ; 8 :
31. Wong ST, Pérez-Stable EJ, Kim SE, et al. Using visual displays to communicate risk of cancer to women from diverse race/ethnic backgrounds. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 ; 87 (3). 327-35
32. Gaissmaier W, Wegwarth O, Skopec D, et al. Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Health Psychol. 2012 ; 31 (3). 286-96
33. D'Agostino RB, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008 ; 117 (6). 743-53
34. Witteman HO, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Waters EA, et al. Risk estimates from an online risk calculator are more believable and recalled better when expressed as integers. J Med Internet Res. 2011 ; 13 (3). e54
35. Mullet K, Sano D Englewood Cliffs (NJ): SunSoft Press ; 1995 :
36. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Witteman HO, Fuhrel-Forbis A, et al. Animated graphics for comparing two risks: a cautionary tale. J Med Internet Res. 2012 ; 14 (4). e106
37. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001 ; 21 (1). 37-44
38. Nelson W, Reyna VF, Fagerlin A, et al. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann Behav Med. 2008 ; 35 (3). 261-74
39. Peters E, Hibbard J, Slovic P, et al. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Aff. 2007 ; 26 (3). 741-8
40. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, et al. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS). Med Decis Making. 2007 ; 27 (5). 672-80
41. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, et al. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007 ; 27 (5). 663-71
42. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R. Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31 (3). 444-57
43. College Station (TX): Stata Corporation ; 2011 :
44. Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-processes approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004 ; 13 (2). 60-6
45. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, et al. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009 ; 135 (6). 943-73
46. Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2013 ; 70: 37S - 49S