Cargando…
The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers’ Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial
BACKGROUND: Although decision-makers in health care settings need to read and understand the validity of quantitative reports, they do not always carefully read information on research methods. Presenting the methods in a more structured way could improve the time spent reading the methods and incre...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
JMIR Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9044155/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35412464 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/29813 |
_version_ | 1784695042080768000 |
---|---|
author | Koetsenruijter, Jan Wronski, Pamela Ghosh, Sucheta Müller, Wolfgang Wensing, Michel |
author_facet | Koetsenruijter, Jan Wronski, Pamela Ghosh, Sucheta Müller, Wolfgang Wensing, Michel |
author_sort | Koetsenruijter, Jan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Although decision-makers in health care settings need to read and understand the validity of quantitative reports, they do not always carefully read information on research methods. Presenting the methods in a more structured way could improve the time spent reading the methods and increase the perceived relevance of this important report section. OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of a structured summary of the methods used in a quantitative data report on reading behavior with eye-tracking and measure the effect on the perceived importance of this section. METHODS: A nonrandomized pilot trial was performed in a computer laboratory setting with advanced medical students. All participants were asked to read a quantitative data report; an intervention arm was also shown a textbox summarizing key features of the methods used in the report. Three data-collection methods were used to document reading behavior and the views of participants: eye-tracking (during reading), a written questionnaire, and a face-to-face interview. RESULTS: We included 35 participants, 22 in the control arm and 13 in the intervention arm. The overall time spent reading the methods did not differ between the 2 arms. The intervention arm considered the information in the methods section to be less helpful for decision-making than did the control arm (scores for perceived helpfulness were 4.1 and 2.9, respectively, range 1-10). Participants who read the box more intensively tended to spend more time on the methods as a whole (Pearson correlation 0.81, P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adding a structured summary of information on research methods attracted attention from most participants, but did not increase the time spent on reading the methods or lead to increased perceptions that the methods section was helpful for decision-making. Participants made use of the summary to quickly judge the methods, but this did not increase the perceived relevance of this section. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9044155 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | JMIR Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90441552022-04-28 The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers’ Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial Koetsenruijter, Jan Wronski, Pamela Ghosh, Sucheta Müller, Wolfgang Wensing, Michel JMIR Med Inform Original Paper BACKGROUND: Although decision-makers in health care settings need to read and understand the validity of quantitative reports, they do not always carefully read information on research methods. Presenting the methods in a more structured way could improve the time spent reading the methods and increase the perceived relevance of this important report section. OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of a structured summary of the methods used in a quantitative data report on reading behavior with eye-tracking and measure the effect on the perceived importance of this section. METHODS: A nonrandomized pilot trial was performed in a computer laboratory setting with advanced medical students. All participants were asked to read a quantitative data report; an intervention arm was also shown a textbox summarizing key features of the methods used in the report. Three data-collection methods were used to document reading behavior and the views of participants: eye-tracking (during reading), a written questionnaire, and a face-to-face interview. RESULTS: We included 35 participants, 22 in the control arm and 13 in the intervention arm. The overall time spent reading the methods did not differ between the 2 arms. The intervention arm considered the information in the methods section to be less helpful for decision-making than did the control arm (scores for perceived helpfulness were 4.1 and 2.9, respectively, range 1-10). Participants who read the box more intensively tended to spend more time on the methods as a whole (Pearson correlation 0.81, P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adding a structured summary of information on research methods attracted attention from most participants, but did not increase the time spent on reading the methods or lead to increased perceptions that the methods section was helpful for decision-making. Participants made use of the summary to quickly judge the methods, but this did not increase the perceived relevance of this section. JMIR Publications 2022-04-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9044155/ /pubmed/35412464 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/29813 Text en ©Jan Koetsenruijter, Pamela Wronski, Sucheta Ghosh, Wolfgang Müller, Michel Wensing. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 12.04.2022. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Informatics, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://medinform.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Koetsenruijter, Jan Wronski, Pamela Ghosh, Sucheta Müller, Wolfgang Wensing, Michel The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers’ Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial |
title | The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers’ Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial |
title_full | The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers’ Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial |
title_fullStr | The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers’ Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers’ Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial |
title_short | The Effect of an Additional Structured Methods Presentation on Decision-Makers’ Reading Time and Opinions on the Helpfulness of the Methods in a Quantitative Report: Nonrandomized Trial |
title_sort | effect of an additional structured methods presentation on decision-makers’ reading time and opinions on the helpfulness of the methods in a quantitative report: nonrandomized trial |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9044155/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35412464 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/29813 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT koetsenruijterjan theeffectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial AT wronskipamela theeffectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial AT ghoshsucheta theeffectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial AT mullerwolfgang theeffectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial AT wensingmichel theeffectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial AT koetsenruijterjan effectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial AT wronskipamela effectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial AT ghoshsucheta effectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial AT mullerwolfgang effectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial AT wensingmichel effectofanadditionalstructuredmethodspresentationondecisionmakersreadingtimeandopinionsonthehelpfulnessofthemethodsinaquantitativereportnonrandomizedtrial |