Medical Decision Making

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lipkus, I. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lipkus, I. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
This version was published on October 1, 2007
Medical Decision Making, Vol. 27, No. 5, 696-713 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07307271
© 2007 Society for Medical Decision Making

Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations

Isaac M. Lipkus, PhD

Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, lipku001{at}mc.duke.edu

Perception of health risk can affect medical decisions and health behavior change. Yet the concept of risk is a difficult one for the public to grasp. Whether perceptions of risk affect decisions and behaviors often relies on how messages of risk magnitudes (i.e., likelihood) are conveyed. Based on expert opinion, this article offers, when possible, best practices for conveying magnitude of health risks using numeric, verbal, and visual formats. This expert opinion is based on existing empirical evidence, review of papers and books, and consultations with experts in risk communication. This article also discusses formats to use pertaining to unique risk communication challenges (e.g., conveying small-probability events, interactions). Several recommendations are suggested for enhancing precision in perception of risk by presenting risk magnitudes numerically and visually. Overall, there are little data to suggest best practices for verbal communication of risk magnitudes. Across the 3 formats, few overall recommendations could be suggested because of 1) lack of consistency in testing formats using the same outcomes in the domain of interest, 2) lack of critical tests using randomized controlled studies pitting formats against one another, and 3) lack of theoretical progress detailing and testing mechanisms why one format should be more efficacious in a specific context to affect risk magnitudes than others. Areas of future research are provided that it is hoped will help illuminate future best practices.

Key Words: risk communication • methodology

References

  • Edwards A., Bastian H. Risk communication: making evidence part of patient choices. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, eds. Evidence-Based Patient Choice: Inevitable or Impossible? Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2001:144—60.
  • National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1989.
  • Codex Alimentarius Commission. Procedural Manual. 2004. Available from: URL: www.foodrisk.org/risk_communication.cfm
  • Plough A., Krimsky S. The emergence of risk communication studies: social and political context. Sci Technol Human Values. 1987;12:4—10.[ISI]
  • Sandman P., Miller P., Johnson B., Weinstein N. Agency communication, community outrage, and perception of risk: three simulation experiments. Risk Anal. 1993;13(6):585—98.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Weinstein ND What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;25:15—20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Bogardus SJ, Holmboe E., Jekel J. Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk. JAMA. 1999;281(11):1037—41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Berry D. Risk, Communication, and Health Psychology. London: Open University Press; 2004.
  • Brun W. Risk perception: main issues, approaches and findings. In: Wright G, Ayton P, eds. Subjective Probability. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1994. p 295—320.
  • Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 1999;19(4):689—701.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Thompson P., Dean W. Competing conceptions of risk. Risk, Health, Safety, and Environment. 1996;7:361—84.
  • Yates J., Stone E. The risk construct. In: Yates J, ed. Risk-Taking Behavior. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 1992. p 1—125.
  • Gigerenzer G. Why the distinction between single event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology (and vice versa). In: Wright G, Ayton P, eds. Subjective Probability. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1994. p 129—61.
  • Gigerenzer G. Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live with Uncertainty. London: Penguin; 2002.
  • O'Doherty K. Risk communication in genetic counseling: a discursive approach to probability. Theory Psychol. 2006;16:225—56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Gillies D. Philosophical Theories of Probability. London: Rutledge; 2000.
  • Hackings I. The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas about Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1975.
  • Weinstein ND Perceived probability, perceived severity, and health-protective behavior. Health Psychol. 2000;19(1):65—74.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Edwards A., Elwyn G. How should effectiveness of risk communication to aid patients' decisions be judged? A review of the literature. Med Decis Making. 1999;19(4):428—34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Rohrmann B. The evaluation of risk communication effectiveness. Acta Psychol. 1992;81:169—92.[CrossRef]
  • Weinstein N., Sandman P. Some criteria for evaluating risk messages. Risk Anal. 1993;13:103—14.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):137—45.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Griffin R., Dunwoody S., Neuwirth K. A proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventative behaviors. Environ Res. 1999;80: 230—45.
  • Griffin R., Neuwirth K., Dunwoody S., Giese J. Information sufficiency and risk communication. Media Psychol. 2004;6:23—61.[CrossRef]
  • Kahlor L., Dunwoody S., Griffin R., Neuwirth K., Giese J. Studying heuristic-systematic processing of risk communication. Risk Anal. 2003;23:355—68.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Johnson B. Testing and expanding a model of cognitive processing of risk information. Risk Anal. 2005;25(3):631—50.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Trumbo C. Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Anal. 1999;19:391—400.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. 2001;127(2):267—86.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Slovic P., Peters E., Finucane ML, Macgregor DG Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4 Suppl):S35—40.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 1994;14(6):1085—96.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Windschitl P., Wells GA Measuring psychological uncertainty: verbal versus numeric methods. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1996;2:343—64.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Gurmankin AD, Baron J., Armstrong K. The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(3):265—71.[Abstract]
  • Erev I., Cohen B. Verbal versus numerical probabilities: efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1990;45:1—18.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Wallsten T., Budescu D., Zwick R., Kemp S. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bull Psychol Soc. 1993;31:135—8.
  • Mazur D., Hickman D., Mazur M. How patients' preferences for risk information influences treatment choice in a case of high risk and high therapeutic uncertainty: asymptomatic localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:394—8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Lipkus IM, Samsa G., Rimer BK General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37—44.[Abstract]
  • Woloshin S., Schwartz L., Moncur M., Gabriel S., Tosteson A. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:382—90.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Johnson BB, Slovic P. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Anal. 1995;15(4):485—94.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Politi M., Han P., Col N. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):681—95.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Nuovo J., Melnikow J., Chang D. Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2813—4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Gigerenzer G., Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev. 1995;102: 684—704.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Hoffrage U., Gigerenzer G. How to improve the diagnostic inferences of medical experts. In: Kurz-Milcke E, Gigerenzer G, eds. Experts in Science and Society. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum; 2004. p 249—68.
  • Reyna V., Brainerd C. Numeracy, ratio bias and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences. In press.
  • Hoffrage U., Gigerenzer G., Krauss S., Martignon L. Representation facilitates reasoning: what natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition. 2002;84(3):343—52.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Gigerenzer G., Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumercy to insight. BMJ. 2003;237:741—4. 46. Sedlmeier P., Betsch T. Frequency Processing and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.
  • Cassidy A., Duffy SW, Myles JP, Liloglou T., Field JK Lung cancer risk prediction: a tool for early detection. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(1):1—6.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Johnson B. Varying risk comparison elements: effects on public reactions. Risk Anal. 2004;23(4):767—80.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Roth E., Morgan M., Fischhoff B., Lave L., Bostrom A. What do we know about making risk comparisons? Risk Anal. 1990;10(3):375—87.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):745—8.[Free Full Text]
  • Johnson BB Are some risk comparisons more effective under conflict? A replication and extension of Roth et al. Risk Anal. 2003;23(4):767—80.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Woloshin S., Schwartz LM, Welch HG Risk charts: putting cancer in context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(11):799—804.[Free Full Text]
  • Covello V., Sandman P., Slovic P. Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparison. Washington (DC): Chemical Manufacturers Association; 1988.
  • Schechtman E. Odds ratio, relative risk, absolute risk reduction, and the number needed to treat—which of these should we use? Value Health. 2002;5(5):431—6.
  • Johnson E., Payne J., Bettman J. Information displays and preference reversals. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1988;42:1—21.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Brase G., Cosmides L., Tooby J. Individuation, counting, and statistical inference: the role of frequency and whole-object representations in judgement under uncertainty. J Exp Psychol. 1998; 127(1):3—21.[ISI]
  • Halpern D., Blackman S., Salzman B. Using statistical risk information to assess oral contraceptive safety. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1989;3(3):251—60.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Yamagishi K. When a 12.86% mortality rate is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1997;11:495—506.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Stone E., Sieck W., Bull B., Yates J., Parsk S., Rush C. Foreground: background salience: explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 2003;90(1):19—36.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Stone E., Yates J., Parker A. Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1997;3(4):243—56.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Alonso D., Fernandez-Berrocal P. Irrational decisions: attending to numbers rather than ratios. Pers Individ Dif. 2003;35(7):1537—47.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Denes-Raj V., Epstein S. Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66(5):819—29.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Denes-Raj V., Epstein S., Cole J. The generality of the ratio-bias phenomenon. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21(10):1083—92.[Abstract]
  • Pacini R., Epstein S. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76(6):972—87.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Slovic P. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Anal. 1986;6(4):403—15.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Verplanken B. The effect of catastrophe potential on the interpretation of numerical probabilities of the occurrence of hazards. J Appl Soc Psych. 1997;27(16):1453—67.[CrossRef]
  • Fisher A., McClelland G., Schulze W. Communicating risk under title III of SARA: strategies for explaining very small risks in a community context. J Air Pollut Control Assoc. 1989;39:271—6.
  • Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision-making under risk. Econometrica. 1979:47:362—77.
  • Edwards A., Elwyn G., Covey J., Matthews E., Pill R. Presenting risk information—a review of the effects of ``framing'' and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001; 6(1):61—82.[CrossRef]
  • McGettigan P., Sly K., O'Connell D., Hill S., Henry D. The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(10):633—42.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Moxey A., O'Connell D., McGettigan P., Henry D. Describing treatment effects to patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(11):948—59.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Covey J. A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Med Dec Making. 2007;27(5): 638—54.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Natter H., Berry D. The effects of presenting baseline risk when communicating absolute and relative risk reduction. Psychol Health Med. 2005;10(4):326—34.[CrossRef]
  • Edwards A., Elwyn G., Stott N. Communicating risk reductions: researchers should present results with both relative and absolute risks. BMJ. 1999;318(7183):603—4.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Koehler J. The base rate fallacy reconsidered: descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1996;3(11):1511—23.
  • Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun. 2006;11(2):167—82.[CrossRef]
  • Gigerenzer G. Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2002.
  • Sandman P., Weinstein N., Miller P. High risk or low: how location on a ``risk ladder'' affected perceived risk. Risk Anal. 1994;14:35—45.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Sandman P., Weinstein N. Communicating Effectively about Risk Magnitudes: Bottom Line Conclusions and Recommendations for Practitioners. Aug. Report No. 230.Washington (DC): Environmental Protection Agency; 1994.
  • Paling J. Up to Your Armpits in Alligators: How to Sort out What Risks Are Worth Worrying about. Gainsville (FL): Risk Communication and Environmental Institute; 1997.
  • Stallings SP, Paling JE New tool for presenting risk in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(2):345—9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Lee DH, Mehta MD Evaluation of a visual risk communication tool: effects on knowledge and perception of blood transfusion risk. Transfusion. 2003;43(6):779—87.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Budescu D., Karelitz T., Wallsten T. Predicting the directionality of probability words from their membership functions. J Behav Decis Making. 2003;16(3):159—80.[CrossRef]
  • Weber E., Hilton D. Contextual effects in the interpretation of probability words—perceived base rate and severity of events. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990;16:781—9.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Renooij S., Witteman C. Talking probabilities: communicating probabilistic information with words and numbers. Int J Approx Reason. 1999;22:169—94.[CrossRef]
  • Weber BL, Nathanson KL Low penetrance genes associated with increased risk for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(10):1193—9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Wallsten T., Fillenbaum S., Cox J. Base rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions J Mem Lang. 1986;25:571—87.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Fox C., Irwin J. The role of context in the communication of uncertain beliefs. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 1998;20(1):57—70.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Mazur DJ, Hickam DH The effect of physician's explanations on patients' treatment preferences: five-year survival data. Med Decis Making. 1994;14(3):255—8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Moxey L., Sanford A. Communicating quantities: a review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectives. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2000;14(3):237—55.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Karelitz TM, Budescu DV You say ``probable'' and I say ``likely'': improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2004;10(1):25—41.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Dhami MK, Wallsten TS Interpersonal comparison of subjective probabilities: toward translating linguistic probabilities. Mem Cogn. 2005;33(6):1057—68.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hamm R. Selection of verbal probabilities: a solution for some problems of verbal probability expressions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1991;48:193—223.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Gillan D., Wickens C., Hollands J., Carswell C. Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Hum Factors. 1998;40:28—41.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Kosslyn S. Understanding charts and graphs. Appl Cognit Psychol. 1989;3(3):185—225.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Cleveland W., McGill R. Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;77:541—7.[CrossRef]
  • Lipkus IM, Hollands JG The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):149—63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Kreps G. Communicating harm and benefits to vulnerable populations. Med Dec Making. In press.
  • Jarvenpaa S. Graphic displays in decision making—the visual salience effect. J Behav Decis Making. 1990;3:247—62.
  • Ancker J., Senathirajah Y., Kukafka R., Starren J. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608—18.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Hollands JG, Tanaka T., Dyre BP Understanding bias in proportion production. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002; 28(3):563—74.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Schirillo J., Stone E. The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Anal. 2005;25(3):555—66.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Chua HF, Yates JF, Shah P. Risk avoidance: graphs versus numbers. Mem Cogn. 2006;34(2):399—410.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Waters E., Weinstein N., Colditz G., Emmons K. Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decision. J Exp Psychol. 2007;13(1):11—21.[ISI]
  • Armstrong K., FitzGerald G., Schwartz JS, Ubel PA Using survival curve comparisons to inform patient decision making can a practice exercise improve understanding? J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(7):482—5.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Parrott R., Silk K., Dorgan K., Condit C., Harris T. Risk comprehension and judgments of statistical evidentiary appeals: when a picture is not worth a thousand words. Health Commun Res. 2005;31:423—52.
  • Gail MH, Costantino JP Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(5):334—5.[Free Full Text]
  • Brindle P., Bewick A., Fahey T., Ebrahim S. Accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. Heart. 2006;92:1752—9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Strecher VJ, Kreuter MW The psychosocial and behavioral impact of health risk appraisals. In: Croyle RT, ed. Psychosocial Effects of Screening for Disease Prevention and Detection. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995. p 126—43.
  • Hampson SE, Andrews JA, Lee ME, Foster LS, Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E. Lay understanding of synergistic risk: the case of radon and cigarette smoking. Risk Anal. 1998;18(3):343—50.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Eiser J., Reicher S., Popadec T. Smokers' and non-smokers' estimates of their personal risk of cancer and of the incremental risk attributable to cigarette smoking. Addict Res. 1995;3:221—9.
  • Hermand D., Mullet E., Lavielle S. Perception of the combined effects of smoking and alcohol on cancer risks in never smokers and heavy smokers. J Health Psychol. 1997;2:481—91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • French D., Marteau T., Sutton S., Kinmonth A. Different measures of risk perceptions yield different patterns of interaction for combinations of hazards: smoking, family history and cardiac events. J Behav Decis Making. 2004;17(5):381—93.[CrossRef]
  • Hampson SE, Andrews JA, Barckley M., Lee ME, Lichtenstein E. Assessing perceptions of synergistic health risk: a comparison of two scales. Risk Anal. 2003;23(5):1021—9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hertwig R., Barron G., Weber EU, Erev I. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(8):534—9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Stone E., Yates J., Parker A. Risk communication: absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risk. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1994;60(3):387—408.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Siegrist M. Communicating low risk magnitudes: incidence rates expressed as frequency versus rates expressed as probability. Risk Anal. 1997;17(4):507—10.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Knapp P., Raynor DK, Berry DC Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Qual Safe Health Care. 2004;13(3):176—80.
  • Berry DC, Knapp P., Raynor DK Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients. Lancet. 2002;359(9309):853—4.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Young SD, Oppenheimer DM Different methods of presenting risk information and their influence on medication compliance intentions: results of three studies. Clin Ther. 2006;28(1):129—39.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Weinstein N., Sandman P., Hallman W. Testing a visual display to explain small probabilities. Risk Anal. 1994;14:895—6.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kaplan RM, Hammel B., Schimmel LE Patient information processing and the decision to accept treatment. J Soc Behav Pers. 1985;1(1):113—20.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Woloshin S., Schwartz LM, Byram S., Fischhoff B., Welch HG A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(3):298—307.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Shaheen NJ, Green B., Medapalli RK, et al. The perception of cancer risk in patients with prevalent Barrett's esophagus enrolled in an endoscopic surveillance program. Gastroenterology. 2005;129(2):429—36.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Gurmankin AD, Domchek S., Stopfer J., Fels C., Armstrong K. Patients' resistance to risk information in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(5):523—9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Sandman P., Weinstein N., Hallman W. Communications to reduce risk underestimation and overestimation. Risk Decis Pol. 1998;3:93—108.[CrossRef]
  • Rudski JM, Volksdorf J. Pictorial versus textual information and the ratio-bias effect. Percept Motor Skills. 2002;95(2):547—54.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichenstein S. Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: a psychological perspective. Accid Anal Prev. 1978;10:281—385.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Doyle J. Judging cumulative risk. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997; 27(6):500—24.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Knauper B., Kornik R., Atkinson K., Guberman C., Aydin C. Motivation influences the underestimation of cumulative risk. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005;31(11):1511—23.[Abstract]
  • Shaklee H., Fischhoff B. The psychology of contraceptive surprises: cumulative risk and contraceptive effectiveness. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1990;20(5 Pt 2):385—403.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Fuller R., Dudley N., Blacktop J. Older people's understanding of cumulative risks when provided with annual stroke risk information. Postgrad Med J. 2004;80(949):677—8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Mazur DJ, Hickam DH Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5(5):402—5.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A., Ubel PA Mortality versus survival graphs: improving temporal consistency in perceptions of treatment effectiveness. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66(1):100—7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Peters E., Vastfjaill D., Slovic P., Mertz C., Mazzocco K., Dickert S. Numeracy and decision-making. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(5):408—14.
  • Peters E., Dieckman N., Dixon AR, Hibbard J., Mertz C. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(2):169—90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Hibbard J., Peters E., Dixon AR, Tussler M. Consumer competencies and the use of comparative quality information: it isn't just about literacy. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(4):379—94.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Woloshin S., Schwartz LM, Welch HG The effectiveness of a primer to help people understand risk: two randomized trials in distinct populations. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(4):256—65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Schwartz LM, Woloshin S., Welsh HG The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):655—62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Monahan J., Heilbrum K., Silver E., Nabors E., Bone J., Slovic P. Communicating violence risk: frequency formats, vivid outcomes, and forensic settings. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2002;1(2):121—6.
  • Koehler JJ, Macchi L. Thinking about low-probability events: an exemplar-cuing theory. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(8):540—6.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Wallsten T., Budescu D., Rapoport A., Zwick R., Forstyth B. Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. J Exp Psychol. 1986;115(4):348—65.[ISI]
  • Edwards A. Flexible rather than standardised approaches to communicating risks in health care. Qual Safe Health Care. 2004; 13(3):169—70.
  • Shah P., Freedman E., Vekiri I. The comprehension of qualitative information in graphical displays. In: Shah P, Miyake A, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Vissuospatial Thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p 426—76.
  • Shah P. Graph comprehension: the role of format, content, and individual differences. In: Anderson M, Meyer B, Olivier M, eds. Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2001. p 173—85.
  • Freedman E., Shah P. Toward a model of knowledge-based graph comprehension. In: Hegarty M, Meyer B, Hari N, eds. Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2002. p 8—31.
  • Feldman-Stewart D., Kocovski N., McConnell BA, Brundage MD, Mackillop WJ Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(2):228—38.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Reyna V., Brainerd C. Fuzzy-trace theory: an interim synthesis. Learn Individ Dif. 1995;7:1—75.[CrossRef]
  • Wolfe C. Cognitive technologies for gist processing. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38:183—9.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Fagerlin A., Wang C., Ubel PA Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making. 2005;25(4):398—405.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Natter H., Berry D. Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2005; 19:123—35.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Cosmides L., Tooby J. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition. 1996;58:1—73.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Stern E., Aprea C., Ebner H. Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learn Instruct. 2003;13:191—203.[CrossRef]
  • Sedlmeier P. Improving Statistical Reasoning: Theoretical and Practical Implications. Mahwah (NJ): Laurence Erlbaum; 1999.
  • Ghosh AK, Ghosh K. Translating evidence-based information into effective risk communication: current challenges and opportunities. J Lab Clin Med. 2005;145(4):171—80.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Lichenstein S., Slovic P. The Construction of Preference. New York: Cambridge; 2006.
  • Lion R., Meertens R., Bot I. Priorities in information desire about unknown risks. Risk Anal. 2002;22(4):765—76.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Woloshin S., Schwartz LM How can we help people make sense of medical data? Effect Clin Pract. 1999;2(4):176—83.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
M. J. Thun, L. M. Hannan, and M. Stefanek
Risky Business: Tools to Improve Risk Communication in a Doctor's Office
J Natl Cancer Inst, June 18, 2008; 100(12): 830 - 831.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
D. J. Spiegelhalter
Understanding Uncertainty
Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2008; 6(3): 196 - 197.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lipkus, I. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lipkus, I. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?