Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review

Author:

Ancker Jessica S.1ORCID,Benda Natalie C.2,Sharma Mohit M.3,Johnson Stephen B.4,Demetres Michelle5,Delgado Diana5,Zikmund-Fisher Brian J.678ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

2. Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, NY, USA

3. Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

4. Department of Population Health, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA

5. Samuel J. Wood Medical Library, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

6. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

7. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

8. Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Abstract

Background. The format in which probabilities are presented influences comprehension and interpretation. Purpose. To develop comprehensive evidence-based guidance about how to communicate probabilities in health and to identify strengths and weaknesses in the literature. This article presents methods for the review of probability communication and is accompanied by several results articles. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. Study Selection. Two reviewers conducted screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or lay audiences. Data Extraction. In our conceptual framework, people make sense of a stimulus (data in a data presentation format) by performing cognitive tasks, resulting in perceptual, affective, cognitive, or behavioral responses measured as 1 of 14 distinct outcomes. The study team developed custom instruments to extract concepts, conduct risk-of-bias evaluation, and evaluate individual findings for credibility. Data Synthesis. Findings were grouped into tables by task and outcome for evidence synthesis. Limitations. Reviewer error could have led to missing relevant studies despite having 2 independent reviewers screening each article. The granular data extraction and syntheses slowed the work and may have made it less replicable. Credibility was evaluated by only 2 experts. Conclusions. After reviewing 26,793 titles and abstracts, we identified 316 articles about probability communication. Data extraction produced 1,119 individual findings, which were grouped into 37 evidence tables, each containing evidence on up to 10 data presentation format comparisons. The Making Numbers Meaningful project required novel methods for classifying and synthesizing research, which reveal patterns of strength and weakness in the probability communication literature. Highlights The Making Numbers Meaningful project conducted a comprehensive systematic review of experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or other lay audiences. The current article focuses on probability information. Based on a conceptual taxonomy, we reviewed studies based on the cognitive tasks required of participants, assessing 14 distinct possible outcomes. Our review identified 316 articles involving probability communications that generated 1,119 distinct research findings, each of which was reviewed by multiple experts for credibility. The overall pattern of findings highlights which probability communication questions have been well researched and which have not. For example, there has been far more research on communicating single probabilities than on communicating more complex information such as trends over time, and there has been a large amount of research on the effect of communication approaches on behavioral intentions but relatively little on behaviors.

Funder

U.S. National Library of Medicine

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Reference320 articles.

1. National Center for Education Statistics. Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC): highlights of the US National Results. Available from: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/national_results.aspa. 2017. Accessed September 2022.

2. Taxonomies for synthesizing the evidence on communicating numbers in health: Goals, format, and structure

3. The 1-in-X Effect on the Subjective Assessment of Medical Probabilities

4. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. 2020. Available from: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/collections/cer-methods-guide

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.7亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2025 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3