Background. Presentation of risk information influences patients’ ability to interpret health care options. Little is known about this relationship between risk presentation and interpretation among American Indians. Methods. Three hundred American Indian employees on a western American Indian reservation were invited to complete an anonymous written survey. All surveys included a vignette presenting baseline risk information about a hypothetical cancer and possible benefits of 2 prevention plans. Risk interpretation was assessed by correct answers to 3 questions evaluating the risk reduction associated with the plans. Numeric information was the same in all surveys, but framing varied; half expressed prevention benefits in terms of relative risk reduction and half in terms of absolute risk reduction. All surveys used text to describe the benefits of the 2 plans, but half included a graphic image. Surveys were distributed randomly. Responses were analyzed using binary logistic regression with the robust variance estimator to account for clustering of outcomes within participant. Results. Use of a graphic image was associated with higher odds of correctly answering 3 risk interpretation questions (odds ratio = 2.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.5–4.0, P < 0.001) compared to the text-only format. These findings were similar to those of previous studies carried out in the general population. Neither framing information as relative compared to absolute risk nor the interaction between graphic image and relative risk presentation was associated with risk interpretation. Conclusion. One type of graphic image was associated with increased understanding of risk in a small sample of American Indian adults. The authors recommend further investigation of the effectiveness of other types of graphic displays for conveying health risk information to this population.
AnckerJSSenathirajahYKukafkaRStarrenJB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:608–18.
2.
MontoriVMRothmanRL. Weakness in numbers: the challenge of numeracy in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:1071–2.
3.
HuxJENaylorCD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients’ acceptance of treatment?Med Decis Making. 1995;15:152–7.
4.
SheridanSLPignoneMPLewisCL. A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:884–92.
5.
MisselbrookDArmstrongD. Patients’ responses to risk information about the benefits of treating hypertension. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:276–9.
6.
CranneyMWalleyT. Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46:661–3.
7.
MalenkaDJBaronJAJohansenSWahrenbergerJWRossJM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:543–8.
8.
ForrowLTaylorWCArnoldRM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121–4.
9.
NaylorCDChenEStraussB. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916–21.
10.
Feldman-StewartDKocovskiNMcConnellBABrundageMDMackillopWJ. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:228–38.
11.
Zikmund-FisherBJUbelPASmithDM. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:209–14.
12.
BrundageMFeldman-StewartDLeisA. Communicating quality of life information to cancer patients: a study of six presentation formats. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6949–56.
13.
WatersEAWeinsteinNDColditzGAEmmonsK. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun. 2006;11:167–82.
14.
MazurDJMerzJF. How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41:223–8.
15.
EltingLSMartinCGCantorSBRubensteinEB. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators’ decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures. BMJ. 1999;318:1527–31.
16.
LipkusIM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:696–713.
17.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSBlackWCWelchHG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–72.
18.
BraseGL. Which statistical formats facilitate what decisions? The perception and influence of different statistical information formats. J Behav Decis Making. 2002;15:381–401.
19.
HembroffLAHolmes-RovnerMWillsCE. Treatment decision-making and the form of risk communication: results of a factorial survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2004;4:20.
20.
FortinJMHirotaLKBondBEO’ConnorAMColNF. Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot study. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2001;1:2.
21.
SmootEKucanJOCopeJSAaseJM. The craniofacial team and the Navajo patient. Cleft Palate J. 1988;25:395–402.
22.
CarreseJRhodesL. Bridging cultural differences in medical practice: the case of discussing negative information with Navajo patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:92–6.
23.
KaufertJO’NeilJKoolageW. The cultural and political context of informed consent for Native Canadians. Arctic Med Res. 1991;(suppl):181–4.
24.
FreemanW. Making research consent forms informative and understandable: the experience of the Indian Health Service. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1994;3:510–21.
25.
HodgeFSWeinmannSRoubideauxY. Recruitment of American Indians and Alaska Natives into clinical trials. Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10:S41–8.
26.
GarrouteEKunovichRBuchwaldDGoldberg. Medical communication in older American Indians: variations by ethnic identity. J Appl Gerontol. 2006:25:27S–43S.
27.
BuchwaldDMendoza-JenkinsVCroyCMcGoughHBezdekMSpicerP. Attitudes of urban American Indians and Alaska Natives regarding participation in research. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:648–51.
28.
NoeTMansonSMCroyCDMcGoughHHendersonJABuchwaldDS. In their own voices: American Indian decisions to participate in health research. In: TrimbleJFisherC eds. Handbook of Ethical Research with Ethnocultural Populations and Communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005.
29.
LipkusIMSamsaGRimerBK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:37–44.
30.
OttenbacherK. When is a picture worth a thousand p values? A comparison of visual and quantitative methods to analyze single subject data. J Spec Educ. 1990;23:436–49.
31.
CarswellC. The art and psychological science of graphical communication. Psych Sci Agenda. 1995:8–9.
32.
JarvenpaaSLDicksonG. Graphics and managerial decision making: research based guidelines. Commun ACM. 1988;31:764–74.
33.
CuiteCLWeinsteinNDEmmonsKColditzG. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:377–84.
34.
KellerCSiegristM. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:483–90.
35.
PetersEVastfjallDSlovicPMertzCKMazzoccoKDickertS. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006;17:407–13.
36.
HibbardJHPetersEMSlovicPFinucaneML. Making health care report cards easier to use. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2001;27:591–604.
37.
Paasche-OrlowMKParkerRMGazmararianJANielsen-BohlmanLTRuddRR. The prevalence of limited health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:175–84.
38.
KutnerMGreenbergEJinYPaulsenC. The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; 2006. Available from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006483.pdf
39.
FullerRDudleyNBlacktopJ. Risk communication and older people: understanding of probability and risk information by medical inpatients aged 75 years and older. Age Ageing. 2001;30:473–6.
40.
GalesicMGarcia-RetameroRGigerenzerG. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. 2009;28:210–16.
41.
FordJHowertonMWBolenS. Knowledge and Access to Information on Recruitment of Underrepresented Populations to Cancer Clinical Trials. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 122. AHRQ Pub. No. 05-E019–2. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005.
42.
Health status of American Indians compared with other racial/ethnic minority populations—selected states, 2001–2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2003;52:1148–52.
