Shared decision making requires evidence to be conveyed to the patient in a way they can easily understand and compare. Patient decision aids facilitate this process. This article reviews the current evidence for how to present numerical probabilities within patient decision aids.
Methods
Following the 2013 review method, we assembled a group of 9 international experts on risk communication across Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We expanded the topics covered in the first review to reflect emerging areas of research. Groups of 2 to 3 authors reviewed the relevant literature based on their expertise and wrote each section before review by the full authorship team.
Results
Of 10 topics identified, we present 5 fundamental issues in this article. Although some topics resulted in clear guidance (presenting the chance an event will occur, addressing numerical skills), other topics (context/evaluative labels, conveying uncertainty, risk over time) continue to have evolving knowledge bases. We recommend presenting numbers over a set time period with a clear denominator, using consistent formats between outcomes and interventions to enable unbiased comparisons, and interpreting the numbers for the reader to meet the needs of varying numeracy.
Discussion
Understanding how different numerical formats can bias risk perception will help decision aid developers communicate risks in a balanced, comprehensible manner and avoid accidental “nudging” toward a particular option. Decisions between probability formats need to consider the available evidence and user skills. The review may be useful for other areas of science communication in which unbiased presentation of probabilities is important.
ElwynGO’ConnorAStaceyD, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.
2.
TrevenaLJZikmund-FisherBEdwardsA, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(suppl 2):S7.
3.
StaceyDLégaréFLewisK, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):CD001431.
4.
KahnemanD. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Random House; 2011.
5.
Blumenthal-BarbyJSKriegerH. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(4):539–57.
6.
ThalerRSunsteinC. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. London: Penguin Random House; 2009.
7.
BakerDW. The meaning and the measure of health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(8):878–83.
8.
CokelyET, et al. Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judg Decision Making. 2012;7(1):25–47.
9.
Garcia-RetameroR, et al. Measuring graph literacy without a test: a brief subjective assessment. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(7):854–67.
10.
FagerlinA, et al. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672–80.
11.
BerryDCHochhauserM. Verbal labels can triple perceived risk in clinical trials. Drug Inform J. 2006;40(3):249–58.
12.
BerryDCKnappPRaynorDK. Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients. Lancet. 2002;359(9309):853–4.
13.
BerryDCRaynorDKKnappP. Communicating risk of medication side effects: an empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology. Psychol Health Med. 2003;8(3):251–63.
14.
BerryDCRaynorDKKnappPBerselliniE. Patients’ understanding of risk associated with medication use: impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales. Drug Saf. 2003;26(1):1–11.
15.
KnappPRaynorDKBerryDC. Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(3):176–80.
16.
LipkusIM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.
17.
SteinerMJDaleboutSCondonSDominikRTrussellJ. Understanding risk: a randomized controlled trial of communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(4):709–17.
18.
YoungSOppenheimerDM. Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions. Psychol Health Med. 2009;14(4):430–42.
19.
PetersEHartPSTuslerMFraenkelL. Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(4):430–42.
20.
GurmankinADBaronJArmstrongK. The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(3):265–71.
21.
PetersEDieckmannNFVästfjällDMertzCKSlovicPHibbardJH. Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009;15(3):213–27.
22.
Zikmund-FisherB. Helping people know whether measurements have good or bad implications: increasing the evaluability of health and science data communications. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2019;6(1):29–37.
23.
Zikmund-FisherBJ. 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(1 suppl):37s–49s.
24.
SchwartzPH. Questioning the quantitative imperative: decision aids, prevention, and the ethics of disclosure. Hastings Cent Rep. 2011;41(2):30–9.
25.
HestbechMGyrd-HansenDKragstrupJSiersmaVBrodersenJ. Effects of numerical information on intention to participate in cervical screening among women offered HPV vaccination: a randomised study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2016;34(4):401–9.
26.
SchwartzPHImperialeTFPerkinsSMSchmidtKKAlthouseSRawlSM. Impact of including quantitative information in a decision aid for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(4):726–34.
27.
SchwartzPHPerkinsSMSchmidtKKMurielloPFAlthouseSRawlSM. Providing quantitative information and a nudge to undergo stool testing in a colorectal cancer screening decision aid: a randomized clinical trial. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(6):688–702.
28.
TrevenaLJDaveyHMBarrattAButowPCaldwellP. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1):13–23.
29.
KnappPGardnerPHWoolfE. Combined verbal and numerical expressions increase perceived risk of medicine side-effects: a randomized controlled trial of EMA recommendations. Health Expect. 2016;19(2):264–74.
30.
GigerenzerGGaissmaierWKurz-MilckeESchwartzLMWoloshinS. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007;8(2):53–96.
31.
GigerenzerGGalesicM. Why do single event probabilities confuse patients?BMJ. 2012;344:e245.
32.
PetersEHartPSFraenkelL. Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):432–6.
33.
WoloshinSSchwartzLM. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):87–96.
34.
OudhoffJPTimmermansDR. The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(4):487–500.
35.
PighinS, et al. The 1-in-X effect on the subjective assessment of medical probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(5):721–9.
36.
SirotaMJuanchichMBonnefonJF. “1-in-X” bias: “1-in-X” format causes overestimation of health-related risks. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2018;24(4):431–9.
37.
PighinSSavadoriLBarilliE, et al. Communicating Down syndrome risk according to maternal age: “1-in-X” effect on perceived risk. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(8):777–82.
38.
SirotaMJuanchichM. Ratio format shapes health decisions: the practical significance of the “1-in-X” effect. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(1):32–40.
39.
Zikmund-FisherBJ. Continued use of 1-in-X risk communications is a systemic problem. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(4):412–3.
40.
Garcia-RetameroRCokelyET. Effective communication of risks to young adults: using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011;17(3):270–87.
41.
McDowellMGigerenzerGWegwarthORebitschekFG. Effect of tabular and icon fact box formats on comprehension of benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening: a randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(1):41–56.
42.
SchwartzLMWoloshinS. The drug facts box: improving the communication of prescription drug information. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(suppl 3):14069–74.
43.
ReynaVFNelsonWLHanPKDieckmannNF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(6):943–73.
44.
Brust-RenckPGRoyerCEReynaVF. Communicating numerical risk: human factors that aid understanding in health care. Rev Hum Factors Ergon. 2013;8(1):235–76.
45.
PetersE. Beyond comprehension: the role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21:31–5.
46.
FagerlinAZikmund-FisherBJUbelPA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(19):1436–43.
47.
Zikmund-FisherBJFagerlinAKeetonKUbelPA. Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman’s responses?Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(5):528.e1–6.
48.
DammanOC, et al. Making comparative performance information more comprehensible: an experimental evaluation of the impact of formats on consumer understanding. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(11):860–9.
49.
GreeneJHibbardJHSacksRM. Summarized costs, placement of quality stars, and other online displays can help consumers select high-value health plans. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(4):671–9.
50.
LazardAJByronMJVuHPetersESchmidtABrewerNT. Website designs for communicating about chemicals in cigarette smoke. Health Commun. 2019;34(3):333–42.
51.
OettingerMDFinkleJPEssermanD, et al. Color-coding improves parental understanding of body mass index charting. Acad Pediatr. 2009;9(5):330–8.
52.
DieckmannNFPetersEGregoryRTuslerM. Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure. J Risk Res. 2012;15(7):717–35.
53.
HseeC. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;67:247–57.
54.
KellerCSiegristMVisschersV. Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk Anal. 2009;29(9):1255–64.
55.
PighinSSavadoriLBarilliE, et al. Using comparison scenarios to improve prenatal risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(1):48–58.
56.
FagerlinAZikmund-FisherBJUbelPA. “If I’m better than average, then I’m ok?”: comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69(1–3):140–4.
57.
EllsbergD., Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q J Econ. 1961;75:643–69.
58.
SpiegelhalterDRieschH. Don’t know, can’t know: embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2011;369(1956):4730–50.
59.
HanP. Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 suppl):14S–36S.
60.
AnckerJSWeberEUKukafkaR. Effects of game-like interactive graphics on risk perceptions and decisions. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(1):130–42.
61.
BatyBJ, et al. BRCA1 testing: genetic counseling protocol development and counseling issues. J Genet Couns. 1997;6(2):223–44.
62.
HanPK, 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.
63.
LenertLACherDJ. Use of meta-analytic results to facilitate shared decision making. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(5):412–9.
64.
SchapiraMMNattingerABMcHorneyCA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(6):459–67.
65.
HanPKKleinWMPLehmanTKillamBMassettHFreedmanAN. Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(2):354–66.
66.
HanPKKleinWMPLehmanTCMassettHLeeSCFreedmanAN. Laypersons’ responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(3):391–403.
67.
LipkusIMKleinWMRimerBK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10(8):895–8.
68.
MazorKMDoddKSKunchesL. Communicating hospital infection data to the public: a study of consumer responses and preferences. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(2):108–15.
69.
MuscatelloDJSearlesAMacdonaldRJormL. Communicating population health statistics through graphs: a randomised controlled trial of graph design interventions. BMC Med. 2006;4:33.
70.
BansbackN., et al., Communicating Uncertainty in Benefits and Harms: A Review of Patient Decision Support Interventions. Patient, 2017. 10(3): p. 311-319.
71.
HarrisonMHanPKJRabinB, et al. Communicating uncertainty in cancer prognosis: A review of web-based prognostic tools. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(5):842–9.
72.
van der BlesAMvan der LindenSFreemanALJ, et al. Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. R Soc Open Sci. 2019;6(5):181870.
73.
DieckmannNFGregoryRPetersEHartmanR. Seeing what you want to see: how imprecise uncertainty ranges enhance motivated reasoning. Risk Anal. 2017;37(3):471–86.
74.
DieckmannNFPetersEGregoryR. At home on the range? Lay interpretations of numerical uncertainty ranges. Risk Anal. 2015;35(7):1281–95.
75.
HanP. Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:14S–36S.
76.
AgoritsasTHeenAGBrandtL, et al. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ. 2015;350:g7624.
77.
BansbackNHarrisonMMarraC. Does introducing imprecision around probabilities for benefit and harm influence the way people value treatments?Med Decis Making. 2016;36(4):490–502.
78.
HarrisonMMarraCABansbackN. Preferences for ‘new’ treatments diminish in the face of ambiguity. Health Econ. 2017;26(6):743–52.
79.
VisschersV. Judgments under uncertainty: evaluations of univocal, ambiguous and conflicting probability information. J Risk Res. 2017;20:237–5.
80.
EngelhardtEGPieterseAHHanPKJ, et al. Disclosing the uncertainty associated with prognostic estimates in breast cancer. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):179–92.
81.
LuCYKarnonJSorichMJ. The importance of high-quality evidence of the long-term impact of nonfatal events used in randomized controlled trials: a case study of prasugrel. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90(1):27–9.
82.
KulendrarajahBGreyANunanD. How effective are ‘age’ tools at changing patient behaviour? A rapid review. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020;25(2):1–2.
83.
SpiegelhalterD. How old are you, really? Communicating chronic risk through ‘effective age’ of your body and organs. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16:104.
84.
BonnerCBellKJansenJ, et al. Should heart age calculators be used alongside absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment?BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018;18(1):19.
85.
GroenewegenKAden RuijterHMPasterkampGPolakJFBotsMLPetersSA. Vascular age to determine cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review of its concepts, definitions, and clinical applications. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23(3):264–74.
86.
GroverSALowensteynIJosephL, et al. Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy: the CHECK-UP study: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(21):2296–303.
87.
Lopez-GonzalezAAAguiloAFronteraM, et al. Effectiveness of the heart age tool for improving modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in a Southern European population: a randomized trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015;22(3):389–96.
88.
SouretiAHurlingRMurrayPvan MechelenWCobainM, Evaluation of a cardiovascular disease risk assessment tool for the promotion of healthier lifestyles. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010;17(5):519–23.
89.
WittemanHOFuhrel-ForbisAWijeysunderaHC, et al. Animated randomness, avatars, movement, and personalization in risk graphics. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):e80.
90.
BonnerCJansenJNewellBR, et al. Is the “heart age” concept helpful or harmful compared to absolute cardiovascular disease risk? An experimental study. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(8):967–78.
91.
DammanOCVonkSIvan den HaakMJvan HooijdonkCMJTimmermansDRM. The effects of infographics and several quantitative versus qualitative formats for cardiovascular disease risk, including heart age, on people’s risk understanding. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(8):1410–8.
92.
BonnerCBatcapCCornellS, et al. Protocol for a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative effects of cardiovascular disease risk communication using ‘heart age’ concepts. medRxiv. 2020;2020.05.03.20089938.
93.
BonnerC, et al. Experiences of a national web-based heart age calculator for cardiovascular disease prevention: user characteristics, heart age results, and behavior change survey. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):e19028.
94.
BonnerCMcKinnSMcCaffreyK, et al. Is the NHS ‘heart age test’ too much medicine?Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(688):560–1.
95.
HarmsenCGKristiansenISLarsenPV, et al. Communicating risk using absolute risk reduction or prolongation of life formats: cluster-randomised trial in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2014;64(621):e199–207.
96.
AlbarqouniLDoustJGlasziouP. Patient preferences for cardiovascular preventive medication: a systematic review. Heart. 2017;103(20):1578–86.
97.
HalvorsenPAAaslandOGKristiansenIS. Decisions on statin therapy by patients’ opinions about survival gains: cross sectional survey of general practitioners. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:79.
98.
HalvorsenPASelmerRKristiansenIS. Different ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(12):848–56.
99.
LipkusIMPetersE. Understanding the role of numeracy in health: proposed theoretical framework and practical insights. Health Educ Behav. 2009;36(6):1065–81.
100.
WeinsteinNDAtwoodKPuleoEFletcherRColditzGEmmonsKM. Colon cancer: risk perceptions and risk communication. J Health Commun. 2004;9(1):53–65.
101.
WoloshinSSchwartzLMBlackWCWelchHG. Women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk: how you ask matters. Med Decis Making. 1999;19(3):221–9.
102.
PetersEVästfjällDSlovicPMertzCKMazzoccoKDickertS. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(5):407–13.
103.
ReynaVBrainedC. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences. 2008;18:89–107.
104.
Garcia-RetameroRGalesicM. Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: a cross-cultural comparison. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2196–202.
105.
GalesicMGarcia-RetameroR. Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(5):462–8.
106.
AndersonBLGigerenzerGParkerSSchulkinJ. Statistical literacy in obstetricians and gynecologists. J Healthc Qual. 2014;36(1):5–17.
107.
Garcia-RetameroRCokelyET. The influence of skills, message frame, and visual aids on prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. J Behav Decis Making. 2014;27(2):179–89.
108.
HanochYMiron-ShatzTColeHHimmelsteinMFedermanAD. Choice, numeracy, and physicians-in-training performance: the case of Medicare Part D. Health Psychol. 2010;29(4):454–9.
109.
JennyMAKellerNGigerenzerG. Assessing minimal medical statistical literacy using the Quick Risk Test: a prospective observational study in Germany. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e020847.
110.
PetrovaDGvan der PligtJGarcia-RetameroR. Feeling the numbers: on the interplay between risk, affect, and numeracy. J Behav Decis Making. 2014;27(3):191–9.
111.
GaissmaierWGieseHGalesicM, et al. Numeracy of multiple sclerosis patients: a comparison of patients from the PERCEPT study to a German probabilistic sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(1):74–8.
112.
PetersE. Innumeracy in the Wild: Misunderstanding and Misusing Numbers. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2020.
113.
PaulosJA. Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences. New York: Macmillan; 1988.
114.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSBlackWCWelchHG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):966–72.
115.
LipkusIMSamsaGRimerBK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37–44.
116.
WellerJADieckmannNFTuslerMMertzCKBurnsWJPetersE. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: a Rasch analysis approach. J Behav Decis Mak. 2013;26(2):198–212.
117.
SchapiraMMWalkerCMCappaertKJ, et al. The numeracy understanding in medicine instrument: a measure of health numeracy developed using item response theory. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(6):851–65.
118.
SchapiraMM, et al. Development and validation of the numeracy understanding in Medicine Instrument short form. J Health Commun. 2014;19(suppl 2)240–53.
119.
GaissmaierWAndersonBLSchulkinJ. How do physicians provide statistical information about antidepressants to hypothetical patients?Med Decis Making. 2014;34(2):206–15.
120.
Zikmund-FisherBJSmithDMUbelPAFagerlinA. Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):663–71.
121.
PetersEBjalkebringP. Multiple numeric competencies: when a number is not just a number. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;108(5):802–22.
122.
WatersEABiddleCKaphingstKA, et al. Examining the interrelations among objective and subjective health literacy and numeracy and their associations with health knowledge. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(11):1945–53.
123.
LågTBaugerLLindbergMFriborgO. The role of numeracy and intelligence in health-risk estimation and medical data interpretation. J Behav Decis Making. 2014;27(2):95–108.
124.
TraczykJSobkowAFulawkaKKusJPetrovaDGarcia-RetameroR. Numerate decision makers don’t use more effortful strategies unless it pays: a process tracing investigation of skilled and adaptive strategy selection in risky decision making. Judgment and Decision Making. 2018;13:372–81.
125.
PetersE, et al. Despite high objective numeracy, lower numeric confidence relates to worse financial and medical outcomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(39):19386–91.
126.
PetersEMeilleurLTompkinsM. Numeracy and the Affordable Care Act: opportunities and challenges. health literacy and numeracy: workshop summary. Roundtable on Health Literacy; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice.: Washington (DC): Institute of Medicine; 2014.
127.
Bruine de BruinWWallinAParkerAMStroughJHanmerJ. Effects of anti-versus pro-vaccine narratives on responses by recipients varying in numeracy: a cross-sectional survey-based experiment. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(8):860–70.
