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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koetsenruijter, Jan, Wronski, Pamela, Ghosh, Sucheta, Müller, Wolfgang, Wensing, Michel
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