Cargando…
Effect of different visual presentations on the public’s comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of bar graph, pictograph and line graph compared with text-only, and to each other, for communicating prognosis to the public. DESIGN: Two online four-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials. Statistical significance was set at p<0.016 to allow for...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10277048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37316324 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067624 |
_version_ | 1785060208325689344 |
---|---|
author | Abukmail, Eman Bakhit, Mina Jones, Mark Del Mar, Chris Hoffmann, Tammy |
author_facet | Abukmail, Eman Bakhit, Mina Jones, Mark Del Mar, Chris Hoffmann, Tammy |
author_sort | Abukmail, Eman |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of bar graph, pictograph and line graph compared with text-only, and to each other, for communicating prognosis to the public. DESIGN: Two online four-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials. Statistical significance was set at p<0.016 to allow for three-primary comparisons. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Two Australian samples were recruited from members registered at Dynata online survey company. In trial A: 470 participants were randomised to one of the four arms, 417 were included in the analysis. In trial B: 499 were randomised and 433 were analysed. INTERVENTIONS: In each trial four visual presentations were tested: bar graph, pictograph, line graph and text-only. Trial A communicated prognostic information about an acute condition (acute otitis media) and trial B about a chronic condition (lateral epicondylitis). Both conditions are typically managed in primary care where ‘wait and see’ is a legitimate option. MAIN OUTCOME: Comprehension of information (scored 0–6). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Decision intention, presentation satisfaction and preferences. RESULTS: In both trials, the mean comprehension score was 3.7 for the text-only group. None of the visual presentations were superior to text-only. In trial A, the adjusted mean difference (MD) compared with text-only was: 0.19 (95% CI −0.16 to 0.55) for bar graph, 0.4 (0.04 to 0.76) for pictograph and 0.06 (−0.32 to 0.44) for line graph. In trial B, the adjusted MD was: 0.1 (−0.27 to 0.47) for bar graph), 0.38 (0.01 to 0.74) for pictograph and 0.1 (−0.27 to 0.48) for line graph. Pairwise comparisons between the three graphs showed all were clinically equivalent (95% CIs between −1.0 and 1.0). In both trials, bar graph was the most preferred presentation (chosen by 32.9% of trial A participants and 35.6% in trial B). CONCLUSIONS: Any of the four visual presentations tested may be suitable to use when discussing quantitative prognostic information. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001305819). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10277048 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102770482023-06-19 Effect of different visual presentations on the public’s comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials Abukmail, Eman Bakhit, Mina Jones, Mark Del Mar, Chris Hoffmann, Tammy BMJ Open General practice / Family practice OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of bar graph, pictograph and line graph compared with text-only, and to each other, for communicating prognosis to the public. DESIGN: Two online four-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials. Statistical significance was set at p<0.016 to allow for three-primary comparisons. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Two Australian samples were recruited from members registered at Dynata online survey company. In trial A: 470 participants were randomised to one of the four arms, 417 were included in the analysis. In trial B: 499 were randomised and 433 were analysed. INTERVENTIONS: In each trial four visual presentations were tested: bar graph, pictograph, line graph and text-only. Trial A communicated prognostic information about an acute condition (acute otitis media) and trial B about a chronic condition (lateral epicondylitis). Both conditions are typically managed in primary care where ‘wait and see’ is a legitimate option. MAIN OUTCOME: Comprehension of information (scored 0–6). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Decision intention, presentation satisfaction and preferences. RESULTS: In both trials, the mean comprehension score was 3.7 for the text-only group. None of the visual presentations were superior to text-only. In trial A, the adjusted mean difference (MD) compared with text-only was: 0.19 (95% CI −0.16 to 0.55) for bar graph, 0.4 (0.04 to 0.76) for pictograph and 0.06 (−0.32 to 0.44) for line graph. In trial B, the adjusted MD was: 0.1 (−0.27 to 0.47) for bar graph), 0.38 (0.01 to 0.74) for pictograph and 0.1 (−0.27 to 0.48) for line graph. Pairwise comparisons between the three graphs showed all were clinically equivalent (95% CIs between −1.0 and 1.0). In both trials, bar graph was the most preferred presentation (chosen by 32.9% of trial A participants and 35.6% in trial B). CONCLUSIONS: Any of the four visual presentations tested may be suitable to use when discussing quantitative prognostic information. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001305819). BMJ Publishing Group 2023-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10277048/ /pubmed/37316324 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067624 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | General practice / Family practice Abukmail, Eman Bakhit, Mina Jones, Mark Del Mar, Chris Hoffmann, Tammy Effect of different visual presentations on the public’s comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials |
title | Effect of different visual presentations on the public’s comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials |
title_full | Effect of different visual presentations on the public’s comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials |
title_fullStr | Effect of different visual presentations on the public’s comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Effect of different visual presentations on the public’s comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials |
title_short | Effect of different visual presentations on the public’s comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials |
title_sort | effect of different visual presentations on the public’s comprehension of prognostic information using acute and chronic condition scenarios: two online randomised controlled trials |
topic | General practice / Family practice |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10277048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37316324 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067624 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT abukmaileman effectofdifferentvisualpresentationsonthepublicscomprehensionofprognosticinformationusingacuteandchronicconditionscenariostwoonlinerandomisedcontrolledtrials AT bakhitmina effectofdifferentvisualpresentationsonthepublicscomprehensionofprognosticinformationusingacuteandchronicconditionscenariostwoonlinerandomisedcontrolledtrials AT jonesmark effectofdifferentvisualpresentationsonthepublicscomprehensionofprognosticinformationusingacuteandchronicconditionscenariostwoonlinerandomisedcontrolledtrials AT delmarchris effectofdifferentvisualpresentationsonthepublicscomprehensionofprognosticinformationusingacuteandchronicconditionscenariostwoonlinerandomisedcontrolledtrials AT hoffmanntammy effectofdifferentvisualpresentationsonthepublicscomprehensionofprognosticinformationusingacuteandchronicconditionscenariostwoonlinerandomisedcontrolledtrials |