Effect of Risk Communication Formats on Risk Perception Depending on Numeracy

Abstract

Objective. To examine the influence of numeracy on interpreting various risk communication formats. Design. A random sample of women (N = 266) completed a questionnaire assessing numeracy and risk perception of prenatal test results and results of colon cancer screening tests. The authors examined the relationships between risk level (high v. low) and format of risk presentation (ratio, pictogram, or Paling Perspective Scale) and whether these relationships differed based on the numeracy skills of the participant. Results. The authors identified a significant (P<0.001) 3-way interaction between format, risk level, and numeracy: high-numerate participants in the low-risk group perceived the test results as less risky compared with participants in the high-risk group (P < 0.001) with the Paling Perspective Scale but not with the other formats. For low-numerate participants, they did not observe differences between low- and high-risk scenarios for any of the 3 formats. The results were similar for the Down syndrome and colon cancer scenarios. Overall, the pictogram resulted in significantly lower risk ratings compared with the Paling Perspective Scale and the ratio with numerator 1 (P < 0.001). Conclusion. Different communication formats may produce different risk perceptions, but the effect is qualified by patients' numeracy skills.

Keywords

numeracy risk perception risk communication prenatal tests colon cancer.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Peters E. , Västfjäll D. , Slovic P. , Mertz CK , Mazzocco K. , Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006;17:407-13.

Lipkus IS Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making . 2007;27:696-713.

Gigerenzer G. , Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev. 1995;102: 648-704.

Hoffrage U. , Lindsey S. , Hertwig R. , Gigerenzer G. Medicine: communicating statistical information. Science. 2000;290:2261-2.

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.

Siegrist M. Communicating low risk magnitudes: incidence rates expressed as frequency versus rates expressed as probability. Risk Analysis. 1997;17:507-10.

Bramwell RH , West H. , Salmon P. Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study. BMJ. 2006 ;333:284-6A.

Waters EA , Weinstein ND , Colditz GA , Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions . J Health Commun. 2006;11:167-82.

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.

10.

Edwards A. , Elwyn G. , Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures . BMJ. 2002;324:827-30.

11.

Gigerenzer G. , Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. 2003 ;327:741-4.

12.

Paling JE Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ . 2003;327:745-8.

13.

Singh AD , Paling JE Informed consent: putting risks into perspectives. Surv Ophthalmol . 1997;42:83-6.

14.

Stallings SP , Paling JE New tool for presenting risk in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:345-9.

15.

Siegrist M. , Orlow P. , Keller C. The effect of graphical and numerical risk presentation of hypothetical prenatal diagnosis results on risk perception . Med Decis Making. 2008 ;28:567-574.

16.

Hsee CK The evaluability hypotheses: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1996;67:247-57.

17.

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.

18.

Fagerlin A. , Zikmund-Fisher BJ , Ubel PA , Jankovic A. , Derry HA , Smith DM Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:672-80.

19.

Reyna VF , Brainerd CJ The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences. 2007;17:147-59.

20.

Lipkus IS , Samsa G. , Rimer BK General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples . Med Decis Making. 2001;21:37-44.

21.

Schapira MM , Davids SL , McAuliffe TL , Nattinger AB Agreement between scales in the measurement of breast cancer risk perceptions. Risk Analysis. 2004;24:665-73.

22.

Black WC , Nease RF , Tosteson ANA. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:720-6.

23.

Woloshin S. , Schwartz LM , Byram S. , Fischhoff B. , Welch G. A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study. Med Decis Making. 2000 ;20:298-307.

24.

Zikmund-Fisher BJ , Smith DM , Ubel PA , Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making . 2007;27:663-71.

25.

Peters E. , Dieckmann N. , Dixon A. , Hibbard J. , Mertz CK Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64:169-90.

26.

Peters E. , Hibbard J. , Slovic P. , Dieckmann N. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs. 2007;26:741-8.

27.

Faul F. , Erdfelder E. , Lang A. - G. Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods . 2007;39:175-91.

28.

MacCallum RC , Zhang S. , Praecher KJ , Rucker DD On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol Methods . 2002;7:19-40.

29.

Stone ER , Siek WR , Bull BE , Yates JF , Parks SC , Rush CJ Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2003;90:19-36.

30.

Hibbard J. , Peters E. , Dixon A. , Tusler M. Consumer competencies and the use of comparative quality information . Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64:379-94.