The Influence of Graphic Display Format on the Interpretations of Quantitative Risk Information among Adults with Lower Education and Literacy

Abstract

Objective

To test optimal graphic risk communication formats for presenting small probabilities using graphics with a denominator of 1000 to adults with lower education and literacy.

Methods

A randomized experimental study, which took place in adult basic education classes in Sydney, Australia. The participants were 120 adults with lower education and literacy. An experimental computer-based manipulation compared 1) pictographs in 2 forms, shaded “blocks” and unshaded “dots”; and 2) bar charts across different orientations (horizontal/vertical) and numerator size (small <100, medium 100–499, large 500–999). Accuracy (size of error) and ease of processing (reaction time) were assessed on a gist task (estimating the larger chance of survival) and a verbatim task (estimating the size of difference). Preferences for different graph types were also assessed.

Results

Accuracy on the gist task was very high across all conditions (>95%) and not tested further. For the verbatim task, optimal graph type depended on the numerator size. For small numerators, pictographs resulted in fewer errors than bar charts (blocks: odds ratio [OR] = 0.047, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.023–0.098; dots: OR = 0.049, 95% CI = 0.024–0.099). For medium and large numerators, bar charts were more accurate (e.g., medium dots: OR = 4.29, 95% CI = 2.9–6.35). Pictographs were generally processed faster for small numerators (e.g., blocks: 14.9 seconds v. bars: 16.2 seconds) and bar charts for medium or large numerators (e.g., large blocks: 41.6 seconds v. 26.7 seconds). Vertical formats were processed slightly faster than horizontal graphs with no difference in accuracy. Most participants preferred bar charts (64%); however, there was no relationship with performance.

Conclusions

For adults with low education and literacy, pictographs are likely to be the best format to use when displaying small numerators (<100/1000) and bar charts for larger numerators (>100/1000).

Keywords

risk communication graphic formats health literacy patient education decision making decision aids

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Department for Education and Skills. Skills for Life Survey: A National Needs and Impact Survey of Literacy, Numeracy and ICT Skills. London: Department for Education and Skills; 2003.

Kutner

Greenberg

Baer

. National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL): a first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century. Available from: http://nces.ed.gov/naal 2006

Lipkus

Samsa

Rimer

. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37–44.

Schwartz

Woloshin

Black

Welch

. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):966–72.

Yamagishi

. When a 12.86% mortality risk is more dangerous than a 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1997;11(6):495–506.

Galesic

Garcia-Retamero

. Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(5):462–8.

Waters

Weinstein

Colditz

Emmons

. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun. 2006;11(2):167–82.

Cleveland

McGill

. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science. 1985;229(4716):828–33.

Feldman-Stewart

Kocovski

McConnell

Brundage

Mackillop

. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(2):228–38.

10.

Lipkus

. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.

11.

Lipkus

Hollands

. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):149–63.

12.

Tait

Voepel-Lewis

Zikmund-Fisher

Fagerlin

. Presenting research risks and benefits to parents: does format matter? Anesth Analg. 2010;111(3):718–23.

13.

Zikmund-Fisher

Ubel

Smith

. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(2):209–14.

14.

Elwyn

O’Connor

Bennett

. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS ONE. 2009;4(3):e4705.

15.

O’Connor

Bennett

Stacey

. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3:CD001431.

16.

Feldman-Stewart

Brundage

Zotov

. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(1):34–43.

17.

Ancker

Senathirajah

Kukafka

Starren

. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–18.

18.

Hawley

Zikmund-Fisher

Ubel

Jancovic

Lucas

Fagerlin

. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):448–55.

19.

Tufte

. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1983.

20.

Dolan

Iadarola

. Risk communication formats for low probability events: an exploratory study of patient preferences. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:14.

21.

Brewer

Tzeng

Lillie

Edwards

Peppercorn

Rimer

. Health literacy and cancer risk perception: implications for genomic risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(2):157–66.

22.

DeWalt

Berkman

Sheridan

Lohr

Pignone

. Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(12):1228–39.

23.

Price

Cameron

Butow

. 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.

24.

Shah

Hoeffner

. Review of graph comprehension research: implications for instruction. Educ Psychol Rev. 2002;14(1):47–69.

25.

Tversky

. Spatial schemas in depictions. In: Gattis

, ed. Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2001. p 79–112.

26.

Fortin

Hirota

Bond

O’Connor

Col

. Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001;1:2.

27.

Garcia-Retamero

Galesic

. Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):245–50.

28.

Dunbar

. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behav Brain Sci. 1993;16:681–735.

29.

Wang

. Domain-specific rationality in human choices: violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition. 1996;60(1):31–63.

30.

Zikmund-Fisher

Fagerlin

Ubel

. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer. 2008;113(12):3382–90.

31.

Timmermans

Molewijk

Stiggelbout

Kievit

. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;54(3):255–63.

32.

Feldman-Stewart

Brundage

. Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;54(3):265–73.

33.

Schapira

Nattinger

McAuliffe

. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun. 2006;11(6):569–82.

34.

Schapira

Nattinger

McHorney

. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(6):459–67.

35.

Waters

Weinstein

Colditz

Emmons

. Aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. Br J Health Psychol. 2007;12(3):383–401.

36.

Fagerlin

Wang

Ubel

. 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.

37.

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey: Summary Results, Australia. Report No. 4228.0. Canberra: ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics); 2006.

38.

Chapman

. The development of children’s understanding of proportions. Child Dev. 1975;46(1):141–8.

39.

Hoemann

Ross

. Children’s concepts of chance and probability. In: Brainerd

, ed. Children’s Logical and Mathematical Cognition. New York: Springer; 1982. p 93–121.

40.

Surber

Haines

. The growth of proportional reasoning. In: Annals of Child Development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1987. p 35–87.