Cargando…

Cool but Counterproductive: Interactive, Web-Based Risk Communications Can Backfire

BACKGROUND: Paper-based patient decision aids generally present risk information using numbers and/or static images. However, limited psychological research has suggested that when people interactively graph risk information, they process the statistics more actively, making the information more ava...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J, Dickson, Mark, Witteman, Holly O
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Gunther Eysenbach 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21868349
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1665
_version_ 1782217178650509312
author Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J
Dickson, Mark
Witteman, Holly O
author_facet Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J
Dickson, Mark
Witteman, Holly O
author_sort Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Paper-based patient decision aids generally present risk information using numbers and/or static images. However, limited psychological research has suggested that when people interactively graph risk information, they process the statistics more actively, making the information more available for decision making. Such interactive tools could potentially be incorporated in a new generation of Web-based decision aids. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to investigate whether interactive graphics detailing the risk of side effects of two treatments improve knowledge and decision making over standard risk graphics. METHODS: A total of 3371 members of a demographically diverse Internet panel viewed a hypothetical scenario about two hypothetical treatments for thyroid cancer. Each treatment had a chance of causing 1 of 2 side effects, but we randomly varied whether one treatment was better on both dimensions (strong dominance condition), slightly better on only one dimension (mild dominance condition), or better on one dimension but worse on the other (trade-off condition) than the other treatment. We also varied whether respondents passively viewed the risk information in static pictograph (icon array) images or actively manipulated the information by using interactive Flash-based animations of “fill-in-the-blank” pictographs. Our primary hypothesis was that active manipulation would increase respondents’ ability to recognize dominance (when available) and choose the better treatment. RESULTS: The interactive risk graphic conditions had significantly worse survey completion rates (1110/1695, 65.5% vs 1316/1659, 79.3%, P < .001) than the static image conditions. In addition, respondents using interactive graphs were less likely to recognize and select the dominant treatment option (234/380, 61.6% vs 343/465, 73.8%, P < .001 in the strong dominance condition). CONCLUSIONS: Interactivity, however visually appealing, can both add to respondent burden and distract people from understanding relevant statistical information. Decision-aid developers need to be aware that interactive risk presentations may create worse outcomes than presentations of static risk graphic formats.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3222175
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Gunther Eysenbach
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32221752011-11-22 Cool but Counterproductive: Interactive, Web-Based Risk Communications Can Backfire Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J Dickson, Mark Witteman, Holly O J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: Paper-based patient decision aids generally present risk information using numbers and/or static images. However, limited psychological research has suggested that when people interactively graph risk information, they process the statistics more actively, making the information more available for decision making. Such interactive tools could potentially be incorporated in a new generation of Web-based decision aids. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to investigate whether interactive graphics detailing the risk of side effects of two treatments improve knowledge and decision making over standard risk graphics. METHODS: A total of 3371 members of a demographically diverse Internet panel viewed a hypothetical scenario about two hypothetical treatments for thyroid cancer. Each treatment had a chance of causing 1 of 2 side effects, but we randomly varied whether one treatment was better on both dimensions (strong dominance condition), slightly better on only one dimension (mild dominance condition), or better on one dimension but worse on the other (trade-off condition) than the other treatment. We also varied whether respondents passively viewed the risk information in static pictograph (icon array) images or actively manipulated the information by using interactive Flash-based animations of “fill-in-the-blank” pictographs. Our primary hypothesis was that active manipulation would increase respondents’ ability to recognize dominance (when available) and choose the better treatment. RESULTS: The interactive risk graphic conditions had significantly worse survey completion rates (1110/1695, 65.5% vs 1316/1659, 79.3%, P < .001) than the static image conditions. In addition, respondents using interactive graphs were less likely to recognize and select the dominant treatment option (234/380, 61.6% vs 343/465, 73.8%, P < .001 in the strong dominance condition). CONCLUSIONS: Interactivity, however visually appealing, can both add to respondent burden and distract people from understanding relevant statistical information. Decision-aid developers need to be aware that interactive risk presentations may create worse outcomes than presentations of static risk graphic formats. Gunther Eysenbach 2011-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3222175/ /pubmed/21868349 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1665 Text en ©Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Mark Dickson, Holly O Witteman. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 25.08.2011. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J
Dickson, Mark
Witteman, Holly O
Cool but Counterproductive: Interactive, Web-Based Risk Communications Can Backfire
title Cool but Counterproductive: Interactive, Web-Based Risk Communications Can Backfire
title_full Cool but Counterproductive: Interactive, Web-Based Risk Communications Can Backfire
title_fullStr Cool but Counterproductive: Interactive, Web-Based Risk Communications Can Backfire
title_full_unstemmed Cool but Counterproductive: Interactive, Web-Based Risk Communications Can Backfire
title_short Cool but Counterproductive: Interactive, Web-Based Risk Communications Can Backfire
title_sort cool but counterproductive: interactive, web-based risk communications can backfire
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21868349
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1665
work_keys_str_mv AT zikmundfisherbrianj coolbutcounterproductiveinteractivewebbasedriskcommunicationscanbackfire
AT dicksonmark coolbutcounterproductiveinteractivewebbasedriskcommunicationscanbackfire
AT wittemanhollyo coolbutcounterproductiveinteractivewebbasedriskcommunicationscanbackfire