A Demonstration of ‘‘Less Can Be More’’ in Risk Graphics

Abstract

Background. Online tools such as Adjuvant! provide tailored estimates of the possible outcomes of adjuvant therapy options available to breast cancer patients. The graphical format typically displays 4 outcomes simultaneously: survival, mortality due to cancer, other-cause mortality, and incremental survival due to adjuvant treatment. Objective. To test whether simpler formats that present only baseline and incremental survival would improve comprehension of the relevant risk statistics and/or affect treatment intentions. Design. Randomized experimental manipulation of risk graphics shown included in Internet-administered survey vignettes about adjuvant therapy decisions for breast cancer patients with ER + tumors. Participants. Demographically diverse, stratified random samples of women ages 40 to 74 y recruited from an Internet research panel. Intervention. Participants were randomized to view either pictographs (icon arrays) that displayed all 4 possible outcomes or pictographs that showed only survival outcomes. Measurements. Comprehension of key statistics, task completion times, graph evaluation ratings, and perceived interest in adjuvant chemotherapy. Results. In the primary study (N = 832), participants who viewed survival-only pictographs had better accuracy when reporting the total chance of survival with both chemotherapy and hormonal therapy (63% v. 50%, P < 0.001), higher graph evaluation ratings (x = 7.98 v. 7.67, P = 0.04), and less interest in adding chemotherapy to hormonal therapy (43% v. 50%, P = 0.04; adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.68, P = 0.008). A replication study (N = 714) confirmed that participants who viewed survival-only graphs had higher graph evaluation ratings (x = 8.06 v. 7.72, P = 0.04) and reduced interest in chemotherapy (OR=0.67,P=0.03). Limitations. Studies used general public samples; actual patients may process risk information differently. Conclusions. Taking a ‘‘less is more’’ approach by omitting redundant mortality outcome statistics can be an effective method of risk communication and may be preferable when using visual formats such as pictographs.

Keywords

decision aids risk patient education as topic audiovisual aids.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

O’ Connor AM , Stacey D. , Entwistle SD , et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2003:CD001431.

Peele PB , Siminoff LA , Xu Y. , Ravdin PM Decreased use of adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with individualized risk information. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:301-7.

Siminoff LA , Gordon NH , Silverman P. , Budd T. , Ravdin PM A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer . Psychooncology. 2006;15:1001-13.

Ravdin PM , Siminoff LA , Davis GJ , et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(4):980-91.

Zikmund-Fisher BJ , Fagerlin A. , Ubel PA Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer. 2008;113(12):3382-90.

Fagerlin A. , Wang C. , Ubel PA Reducing the influence of anectodal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making. 2005;25(4): 398-405.

Zikmund-Fisher B. , Fagerlin A. , Roberts TR , Derry HA , Ubel PA Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk occurrence. J Health Comm. 2008 ;13(2):107-24.

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;27:34-43.

Waters EA , Weinstein ND , Colditz GA , Emmons KM Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions . J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007;13(1):11-21.

10.

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;69:121-8.

11.

Belkora J. , Rugo HS , Moore DH , Hutton D. , Esserman L. Risk communication with patients with breast cancer: cautionary notes about printing Adjuvant! estimates. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9: 602-3.

12.

Kosslyn SM Understanding charts and graphs. Appl Cogn Psychol . 1989;3:185-226.

13.

Tufte ER The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. 2nd ed. Cheshire (CT): Graphics Press ; 2001.

14.

Kosslyn SM Graph Design for the Eye and Mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.

15.

Iyengar SS , Lepper MR When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing ? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 79(6):995-1006.

16.

Payne JW , Bettman JR , Johnson EJ The adaptive decision maker: effort and accuracy in choice. In: Hogarth RM , ed. Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J Einhorn. Chicago : University of Chicago Press; 1990. p 129-53.

17.

Luce MF , Bettman JR , Payne JW Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997; 23(2):384-405.

18.

Bassili JN , Scott BS Response latency as a signal to question problems in survey research . Public Opin Q. 1996;60(3):390-9.

19.

Fagerlin A. , Zikmund-Fisher BJ , Ubel PA , Jankovic A. , Derry H. , Smith DM Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS). Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672-80.

20.

Zikmund-Fisher BJ , Smith DM , Ubel PA , Fagerlin A. 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.

21.

Duric VM , Stockler MR , Heritier S. , et al. Patients’ preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: what makes AC and CMF worthwhile now? Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1786-94.

22.

Jansen SJT , Kievit J. , Nooij MA , et al. Patients’ preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer: is treatment worthwhile? Br J Oncol. 2001;84(12):1577-85.

23.

Stata Statistical Software. 10th ed. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation ; 2007.

24.

Schwartz B. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. 1sted. New York: Harper Collins; 2004.

25.

Peters E. , Dieckmann N. , Dixon A. , Hibbard JH , Mertz CK Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(2):169-90.

26.

Amsterlaw J. , Zikmund-Fisher BJ , Fagerlin A. , Ubel PA Can avoidance of complications lead to biased healthcare decisions? Judgm Decis Mak. 2006 ;1(1):64-75.

27.

Baron J. Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation. J Risk Uncertain. 1997;14:301-9.

28.

Fetherstonhaugh D. , Slovic P. , Jonhnson SM , Friedrich J. Insensitivity to the value of human life: a study of psychological numbing. J Risk Uncertain. 1997;14:283-300.

29.

Lacey HP , Smith DM , Ubel PA Hope I die before I get old: mispredicting happiness across the lifespan . J Happiness Stud. 2006;7(2):167-82.