Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on 'fact boxes'

COVID-19 vaccine refusal is driven by deliberate ignorance and cognitive distortions

Vaccine hesitancy was a major challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. A common but sometimes ineffective intervention to reduce vaccine hesitancy involves providing information on vaccine effectiveness, side effects, and related probabilities. Could biased processing of this information contribute to vaccine refusal? We examined the information inspection of 1200 U.S. participants with anti-vaccination, neutral, or pro-vaccination attitudes before they stated their willingness to accept eight different COVID-19 vaccines. All participants-particularly those who were anti-vaccination-frequently ignored some of the information. This deliberate ignorance, especially toward probabilities of extreme side effects, was a stronger predictor of vaccine refusal than typically investigated demographic variables. Computational modeling suggested that vaccine refusals among anti-vaccination participants were driven by ignoring even inspected information. In the neutral and pro-vaccination groups, vaccine refusal was driven by distorted processing of side effects and their probabilities. Our findings highlight the necessity for interventions tailored to individual information-processing tendencies.

Presenting decision-relevant numerical information to Dutch women aged 50-70 with varying levels of health literacy: Case example of adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

If communicated adequately, numerical decision-relevant information can support informed and shared decision making. Visual formats are recommended, but which format supports patients depending on their health literacy (HL) levels for specific decisions is unclear.

STUDY AIM

The aim of this study is to investigate: 1) the effect of survival rates and side-effects presentation formats on comprehension and 'feeling informed'; 2) differential effects among women with higher/lower HL, with adjuvant systemic breast cancer therapy as case example.

METHODS

Two online experiments among women from the Dutch population without a history of breast cancer were conducted. Experiment 1 had a 3 (survival rate format: text block-bar graph-icon array) x 2 (HL: low-high) between-subjects design. Experiment 2 had a 5 (side-effects format: no probability information-probability information in numbers with or without a visualisation-probability information in numbers with or without a visualisation accompanied by a description of the side-effects) x 2 (HL: low-high) design. Primary outcomes were comprehension and feeling informed (Experiment 2 only). Formats were previously designed in co-creation with patients.

RESULTS

In Experiment 1, presentation format did not affect gist or verbatim comprehension. Higher HL was associated with higher gist comprehension. Experiment 2 showed an interaction between presentation format and HL on 'feeling informed'. When provided with visualised probability information without a description of the side-effects, women with lower HL felt better informed than women with higher HL.

CONCLUSION

Visual formats did not enhance comprehension of survival rate information beyond a well-designed text block format. However, none of the formats could overcome HL differences. When designing decision-relevant information, visualisations might not necessarily provide an advantage over structured numerical information for both patients with lower and higher HL. However, a deeper understanding of presenting side-effect information is warranted.

How to convince the vaccine-hesitant? An ease-of-access nudge, but not risk-related information increased Covid vaccination-related behaviors in the unvaccinated

In this study, we contrast how different benefit and harm information formats and the presence or absence of an ease-of-access nudge may facilitate COVID vaccination uptake for a sample of 620 unvaccinated Dutch adults at a timepoint when the vaccine had been widely available for more than a month. Using a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design, we varied the information format on mRNA COVID vaccination statistics (generic text vs. facts box) and an affirmative nudge emphasizing the ease of making a vaccination appointment (absent vs. present). We assessed the acceptance of the vaccination information provided, perceptions on the vaccination, and whether participants directly visited a COVID vaccination appointment website. Whereas the facts box did not significantly affect participants' information acceptance, vaccination attitudes, intentions, and link clicking, the affirmative nudge alongside an online link systematically increased the likelihood of clicking on the link to make a vaccination appointment. A verbal nudge emphasizing the ease of vaccine accessibility is more likely to increase vaccination uptake in an unvaccinated population than informational campaigns on vaccine effectiveness.

Protecting mass-gathering events in a pandemic with testing tracks and transparent information: an experimental study with festival guests

Objective. To enable future open-air festivals during a pandemic, model festivals tested restricted access and behavioural rules to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmissions. However, the uptake of health-protective measures depends on informed acceptance, meaning people are more likely to follow measures if they understand their effectiveness and related disease risks. Design and main outcome measures. With a series of online surveys, we studied risk perceptions of 6,500 festival guests and the association of perceived effectiveness of protective behaviours with reported compliance. In a scenario-based online experiment (N = 1,958) among festival guests, we tested the effect of informing transparently about the risk-reducing potential of protective measures at festivals on the intention to attend hypothetical events. Results. We found that guests tended to overestimate infection risks while still perceiving them as low. Self-reported mask wearing and distancing at and around the festivals could not be associated with the understanding of the measures' effectiveness. However, in addition to protective measures themselves, providing transparent information about their absolute risk-reducing effect increased intentions to attend festivals that employ varying protective measures. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that the acceptance of protected festivals can be influenced by transparent information about the effectiveness of protective measures. This calls for further research on evidence-based public health communications to improve their impact.

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 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).

Bayesian versus diagnostic information in physician-patient communication: Effects of direction of statistical information and presentation of visualization

BACKGROUND

Communicating well with patients is a competence central to everyday clinical practice, and communicating statistical information, especially in Bayesian reasoning tasks, can be challenging. In Bayesian reasoning tasks, information can be communicated in two different ways (which we call directions of information): The direction of Bayesian information (e.g., proportion of people tested positive among those with the disease) and the direction of diagnostic information (e.g., the proportion of people having the disease among those tested positive). The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of both the direction of the information presented and whether a visualization (frequency net) is presented with it on patient's ability to quantify a positive predictive value.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

109 participants completed four different medical cases (2⨯2⨯4 design) that were presented in a video; a physician communicated frequencies using different directions of information (Bayesian information vs. diagnostic information). In half of the cases for each direction, participants were given a frequency net. After watching the video, participants stated a positive predictive value. Accuracy and speed of response were analyzed.

RESULTS

Communicating with Bayesian information led to participant performance of only 10% (without frequency net) and 37% (with frequency net) accuracy. The tasks communicated with diagnostic information but without a frequency net were correctly solved by 72% of participants, but accuracy rate decreased to 61% when participants were given a frequency net. Participants with correct responses in the Bayesian information version without visualization took longest to complete the tasks (median of 106 seconds; median of 13.5, 14.0, and 14.5 seconds in other versions).

DISCUSSION

Communicating with diagnostic information rather than Bayesian information helps patients to understand specific information better and more quickly. Patients' understanding of the relevance of test results is strongly dependent on the way the information is presented.

A Taxonomy of Non-honesty in Public Health Communication

This paper discusses the ethics of public health communication. We argue that a number of commonplace tools of public health communication risk qualifying as non-honest and question whether or not using such tools is ethically justified. First, we introduce the concept of honesty and suggest some reasons for thinking it is morally desirable. We then describe a number of common ways in which public health communication presents information about health-promoting interventions. These include the omission of information about the magnitude of benefits people can expect from health-promoting interventions, and failure to report uncertainty associated with the outcomes of interventions. Next we outline some forms of behaviour which are generally recognised by philosophers as being non-honest, including deception, manipulation, and so on. Finally, we suggest that many of the public health communicative practices identified earlier share features with the non-honest behaviours described and suggest this warrants reflection upon whether such non-honesty is justified by the goals of public health communication.

Medizinische Evidenz kompetent kommunizieren

Wie alle Patienten in Deutschland sollen auch jene in der Herzchirurgie, soweit wie möglich, in die klinische Entscheidungsfindung eingebunden werden. Was möglich ist, hängt – neben Patientenvoraussetzungen – maßgeblich von den kommunikativen Fähigkeiten und Werkzeugen ab, die der beratende Arzt einsetzt, um informiertes Entscheiden auf Basis der besten verfügbaren medizinischen Erkenntnisse zu ermöglichen. Anhand von Schlüsselherausforderungen strukturiert dieser narrative Überblick Lösungsansätze für die Nutzung medizinischer Evidenz in Entscheidungsprozessen: unbestimmte Bezugsrahmen, relative Risiken, komplexe Informationen zu Entscheidungsoptionen bis hin zur Interpretation vorangehender diagnostischer Testergebnisse. Die dargestellten Lösungsansätze stellen in die Versorgung integrierbare Werkzeuge dar. Sie erfordern eine Kompetenzstärkung des Fachpersonals und qualitätsgesicherte medizinische Informationsangebote.

When Artificial Intelligence Voices Human Concerns: The Paradoxical Effects of AI Voice on Climate Risk Perception and Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intention

Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled text-to-speech transformation has been widely employed to deliver online information in various fields. However, few studies have investigated the effect of the AI voice in environmental risk communication, especially in the field of climate change, an issue that poses a severe threat to global public health. To address this gap, the current study examines how the AI voice impacts the persuasive outcome of climate-related information and the potential mechanism that underlies this process. Based on the social and affect heuristics of voice, we propose a serial mediation model to test the effect of climate-related information delivered by different voice types (AI voice vs. human voice) in eliciting risk perception and motivating pro-environmental behavioral intention. Through an online auditory experiment (N = 397), we found the following. First, the AI voice was as effective as the human voice in eliciting risk perception and motivating pro-environmental behavioral intention. Second, compared with human voice, the AI voice yielded a listener's lower level of perceived identity oneness with the speaker, which decreased risk perception and subsequently inhibited pro-environmental behavioral intention. Third, compared with human voice, the AI voice produced a higher level of auditory fear, which increased risk perception and thereby led to stronger pro-environmental behavioral intention. The paradoxical role of the AI voice and its wise use in environmental risk communication for promoting global public health are discussed.

Efficacy of Three Numerical Presentation Formats on Lay People's Comprehension and Risk Perception of Fact Boxes-A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

(1) Background: Fact boxes present the benefits and harms of medical interventions in the form of tables. Some studies suggest that people with a lower level of education could profit more from graphic presentations. The objective of the study was to compare three different formats in fact boxes with regard to verbatim and gist knowledge in general and according to the educational background. (2) Methods: In May 2020, recruitment started for this randomized controlled trial. Participants were given one out of three presentation formats: natural frequencies, percentages, and graphic. We used Limesurvey® to assess comprehension/risk perception as the primary outcome. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used in addition to descriptive analyses. (3) Results: A total of 227 people took part in the study. Results of the groups were nearly identical in relation to the primary outcome verbatim knowledge, likewise in gist knowledge. However, participants with lower educational qualifications differed from participants with higher educational qualifications in terms of verbatim knowledge in the group percentages. (4) Conclusions: The results indicate that all three forms of presentation are suitable for conveying the content. Further research should take the individual preferences regarding the format into account.

Investigating the presentation of uncertainty in an icon array: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are often advised to use pictographs to communicate risk, but whether they offer benefits when communicating risk imprecision (e.g., 65%-79%) is unknown.

PURPOSE

To test whether any of three approaches to visualizing imprecision would more effectively communicate breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers.

METHODS

1,300 UK residents were presented with a genetic report with information about BRCA1-related risks, with random assignment to one of four formats: no visualization (text alone), or a pictograph using shaded icons, a gradient, or arrows marking range endpoints. We also tested pictographs in two layouts. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression was employed.

RESULTS

There was no effect of format. Participants shown pictographs vs. text alone had better uptake of breast cancer risk messages (p < .05, η ² = 0.003). Pictographs facilitated memory for the specific amount of risk (p < 0.001, η ² = 0.019), as did the tabular layout. Individuals not having completed upper secondary education may benefit most.

CONCLUSIONS

We found weak evidence in favor of using simple pictographs with ranges to communicate BRCA risk (versus text alone), and of the tabular layout.

INNOVATION

Testing different ways of communicating imprecision within pictographs is a novel and promising line of research.

The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Clinical guideline development often involves a rigorous synthesis of evidence involving multidisciplinary stakeholders with different priorities and knowledge of evidence synthesis; this makes communicating findings complex. Summary formats are typically used to communicate the results of evidence syntheses; however, there is little consensus on which formats are most effective and acceptable for different stakeholders.

METHODS

This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability (e.g. preferences and attitudes and preferences towards) of evidence synthesis summary formats for GDG members. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline and Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis for MMSRs. We searched six databases (inception to April 20, 2021) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RCTs with a qualitative component, and qualitative studies. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed in duplicate. Qualitative findings were synthesised using meta-aggregation, and quantitative findings are described narratively.

RESULTS

We identified 17,240 citations and screened 54 full-text articles, resulting in 22 eligible articles (20 unique studies): 4 articles reported the results of 5 RCTs, one of which also had a qualitative component. The other 18 articles discussed the results of 16 qualitative studies. Therefore, we had 5 trials and 17 qualitative studies to extract data from. Studies were geographically heterogeneous and included a variety of stakeholders and summary formats. All 5 RCTs assessed knowledge or understanding with 3 reporting improvement with newer formats. The qualitative analysis identified 6 categories of recommendations: 'presenting information', 'tailoring information' for end users, 'trust in producers and summary', 'knowledge required' to understand findings, 'quality of evidence', and properly 'contextualising information'. Across these categories, the synthesis resulted in 126 recommendations for practice. Nine recommendations were supported by both quantitative and qualitative evidence and 116 by only qualitative. A majority focused on how to present information (n = 64) and tailor content for different end users (n = 24).

CONCLUSIONS

This MMSR provides guidance on how to improve evidence summary structure and layout. This can be used by synthesis producers to better communicate to GDGs. Study findings will inform the co-creation of evidence summary format prototypes based on GDG member's needs. Trial registration The protocol for this project was previously published, and the project was preregistered on Open Science Framework (Clyne and Sharp, Evidence synthesis and translation of findings for national clinical guideline development: addressing the needs and preferences of guideline development groups, 2021; Sharp and Clyne, Evidence synthesis summary formats for decision-makers and Clinical Guideline Development Groups: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol, 2021).

Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level

Objective

For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences–while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison).

Results

Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds.

Conclusion

Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population.

Communicating about COVID-19 vaccine development and safety

PURPOSE

Beliefs that the risks from a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh the risks from getting COVID-19 and concerns that the vaccine development process was rushed and lacking rigor have been identified as important drivers of hesitancy and refusal to get a COVID-19 vaccine. We tested whether messages designed to address these beliefs and concerns might promote intentions to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

METHOD

We conducted an online survey fielded between March 8-23, 2021 with US Veteran (n = 688) and non-Veteran (n = 387) respondents. In a between-subjects experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to a control group (with no message) or to read one of two intervention messages: 1. a fact-box styled message comparing the risks of getting COVID-19 compared to the vaccine, and 2. a timeline styled message describing the development process of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

RESULTS

Most respondents (60%) wanted a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 17% expressed hesitancy and 23% did not want to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The fact-box styled message and the timeline message did not significantly improve vaccination intentions, F(2,358) = 0.86, p = .425, [Formula: see text] = .005, or reduce the time respondents wanted to wait before getting vaccinated, F(2,306) = 0.79, p = .453, [Formula: see text] = .005, compared to no messages.

DISCUSSION

In this experimental study, we did not find that providing messages about vaccine risks and the development process had an impact on respondents' vaccine intentions. Further research is needed to identify how to effectively address concerns about the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines and the development process and to understand additional factors that influence vaccine intentions.

Development of a patient decision aid for COVID-19 vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 has been responsible for a pandemic since the beginning of 2020. Vaccine arrival brings a concrete solution to fight the virus. However, vaccine hesitancy is high. In France, the first available vaccine was Comirnaty from Pfizer-BioNTech. Shared decision-making, based on tools such as patient decision aids (PtDAs), can help patients make an informed choice about vaccination with Comirnaty.

OBJECTIVE

The French College of Teachers in General Practice (CNGE) aimed to create a PtDA for people who have to decide whether they will receive the Comirnaty vaccine.

METHODS

Development of the PtDA was performed according to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The initial design was based on a literature review and semistructured interviews with 17 patients to explore and clarify patients' expectations. A first draft of the PtDA was then alpha tested by a patient expert group and a physician expert group. The PtDA was finally beta tested in 14 prevaccine consultations. A steering group was consulted throughout the work. Patient support, community groups and the French National Authority for Health (HAS) were involved in the development process.

RESULTS

A literature review identified one randomized trial on Comirnaty efficacy and safety. The first part of the PtDA allows patients to identify their own risk factors. The second part of the PtDA provides information on vaccination: benefits and risks, unknown data, and technical explanations about the mRNA vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a PtDA to be used in primary care settings for shared decision-making regarding vaccination with Comirnaty.

Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies

BACKGROUND

Factors contributing to the lack of understanding of research studies include poor reporting practices, such as selective reporting of statistically significant findings or insufficient methodological details. Systematic reviews have shown that prognostic factor studies continue to be poorly reported, even for important aspects, such as the effective sample size. The REMARK reporting guidelines support researchers in reporting key aspects of tumor marker prognostic studies. The REMARK profile was proposed to augment these guidelines to aid in structured reporting with an emphasis on including all aspects of analyses conducted.

METHODS

A systematic search of prognostic factor studies was conducted, and fifteen studies published in 2015 were selected, three from each of five oncology journals. A paper was eligible for selection if it included survival outcomes and multivariable models were used in the statistical analyses. For each study, we summarized the key information in a REMARK profile consisting of details about the patient population with available variables and follow-up data, and a list of all analyses conducted.

RESULTS

Structured profiles allow an easy assessment if reporting of a study only has weaknesses or if it is poor because many relevant details are missing. Studies had incomplete reporting of exclusion of patients, missing information about the number of events, or lacked details about statistical analyses, e.g., subgroup analyses in small populations without any information about the number of events. Profiles exhibit severe weaknesses in the reporting of more than 50% of the studies. The quality of analyses was not assessed, but some profiles exhibit several deficits at a glance.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial part of prognostic factor studies is poorly reported and analyzed, with severe consequences for related systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We consider inadequate reporting of single studies as one of the most important reasons that the clinical relevance of most markers is still unclear after years of research and dozens of publications. We conclude that structured reporting is an important step to improve the quality of prognostic marker research and discuss its role in the context of selective reporting, meta-analysis, study registration, predefined statistical analysis plans, and improvement of marker research.

A Description-Experience Framework of the Psychology of Risk

The modern world holds countless risks for humanity, both large-scale and intimately personal-from cyberwarfare, pandemics, and climate change to sexually transmitted diseases and drug use and abuse. Many risks have prompted institutional, regulatory, and technological countermeasures, the success of which depends to some extent on how individuals learn about the risks in question. We distinguish between two powerful but imperfect teachers of risk. First, people may learn by consulting symbolic and descriptive material, such as warnings, statistics, and images. More often than not, however, a risk's fluidity defies precise description. Second, people may learn about risks through personal experience. Responses to risk can differ systematically depending on whether people learn through one mode, both, or neither. One reason for these differences-and by no means the only reason-is the discrepancy in the cognitive impact that rare events (typically the risk event) and common events (typically the nonoccurrence of the risk event) have on the decision maker. We propose a description-experience framework that highlights not only the impact of each mode of learning but also the effects of their interplay on individuals' and collectives' responses to risk. We outline numerous research questions and themes suggested by this framework.

Fact Boxes: What gets through? A focus group study

BACKGROUND

The "fact box" format was developed to present the benefits and side effects of medical treatments without distortion and in a comprehensible manner. Few studies were able to show that fact boxes, when compared with other formats, significantly improve risk perception, comprehensibility and readability. The fact boxes available in Germany, however, vary with regard to how tables and accompanying texts are presented. It is unclear to what extent the existing evidence can be applied to these formats. Hardly any fact boxes have been piloted systematically. The aim was to pilot the fact box "Antibiotics for acute bronchitis" as a model for the format in terms of feasibility.

METHOD

We used print and online media to recruit adults (> 18 years). The characteristics gender, age and level of education were considered for sampling. The feasibility was explored by means of a semi-structured interview guideline. The focus group interviews were audio-taped and then transcribed. Data analysis was conducted as content analysis according to Mayring.

RESULTS

Five focus groups with a total of 28 participants took place between April 2018 and May 2019 (Halle/Saale, Saxony-Anhalt: n=3; St. Ingbert, Saarland: n=1; Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate: n=1). The fact box was piloted in an iterative process; the results were revised accordingly and checked again in focus groups until information saturation was achieved. The analysis identified the following main categories: interpretation of contents, readability, low reliability; credibility, relevance of the information, relevance of the presentation; superfluous information; completeness and layout. Overall, the fact box was hardly understood, especially regarding the numerical presentation given and the technical terms used. Both the objective and the intended addressees of the fact box were not clear. After revision, feasibility was established.

DISCUSSION

The iterative revision process resulted in a final version that was well understood and perceived as a decision aid.

CONCLUSION

The results support the demand of the guideline "Evidence-based Health Information" for piloting evidence-based health information prior to their dissemination and further evaluation. The next step will be to evaluate the fact box format in a randomised controlled trial.

Effect of different visual presentations on the comprehension of prognostic information: a systematic review

Background

Understanding prognostic information can help patients know what may happen to their health over time and make informed decisions. However, communicating prognostic information well can be challenging.

Purpose

To conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesize research that has evaluated visual presentations that communicate quantitative prognostic information to patients or the public.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (from inception to December 2020), and forward and backward citation search.

Study selection

Two authors independently screened search results and assessed eligibility. To be eligible, studies required a quantitative design and comparison of at least one visual presentation with another presentation of quantitative prognostic information. The primary outcome was comprehension of the presented information. Secondary outcomes were preferences for or satisfaction with the presentations viewed, and behavioral intentions.

Data extraction

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

Data synthesis

Eleven studies (all randomized trials) were identified. We grouped studies according to the presentation type evaluated. Bar graph versus pictograph (3 studies): no difference in comprehension between the groups. Survival vs mortality curves (2 studies): no difference in one study; higher comprehension in survival curve group in another study. Tabular format versus pictograph (4 studies): 2 studies reported similar comprehension between groups; 2 found higher comprehension in pictograph groups. Tabular versus free text (3 studies): 2 studies found no difference between groups; 1 found higher comprehension in a tabular group.

Limitations

Heterogeneity in the visual presentations and outcome measures, precluding meta-analysis.

Conclusions

No visual presentation appears to be consistently superior to communicate quantitative prognostic information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-021-01612-9.

Correlates of intended COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across time and countries: results from a series of cross-sectional surveys

OBJECTIVE

Describe demographical, social and psychological correlates of willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

SETTING

Series of online surveys undertaken between March and October 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 25 separate national samples (matched to country population by age and sex) in 12 different countries were recruited through online panel providers (n=25 334).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Reported willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

Reported willingness to receive a vaccine varied widely across samples, ranging from 63% to 88%. Multivariate logistic regression analyses reveal sex (female OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.64), trust in medical and scientific experts (OR=1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34) and worry about the COVID-19 virus (OR=1.47, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.53) as the strongest correlates of stated vaccine acceptance considering pooled data and the most consistent correlates across countries. In a subset of UK samples, we show that these effects are robust after controlling for attitudes towards vaccination in general.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the burden of trust largely rests on the shoulders of the scientific and medical community, with implications for how future COVID-19 vaccination information should be communicated to maximise uptake.

Statements considering intervention effects in Finnish clinical practice guidelines: Recommending interventions with non-numeric effect-sizes or unspecified outcomes

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Representation of benefits and harms associated with specific interventions in an understandable and comparable way is crucial for informed decision making that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to enhance. Therefore, we investigated how statements concerning the effects of interventions considered and described benefits and harms, magnitude of effect and its uncertainty, numeric and non-numeric information, and outcomes in Finnish CPGs.

METHODS

We selected 10 CPGs on common diseases and risk factors published by The Finnish Medical Society, Duodecim. All the statements which were graded with the level of evidence from high to very low (levels A-D) were included in analyses. From these statements, assessments were made regarding whether the statement considered benefits or harms, whether relative or absolute numeric measures were shown, whether the statement supported or was against the intervention considered, and what outcome was reported.

RESULTS

Of the 10 CPGs, 448 statements were assessed. Most of the statements of effects considered intervention benefits (87%) rather than harms. Half of the statements considering harms were represented in a way that supported the intervention. Most of the statements (94%) did not include numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect. When numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect were present, they were most frequently relative measures and were typically placed in a statement considering (a) intervention benefits with a primary outcome, (b) given the grade of A for level of evidence, and (c) that supported the use of intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Finnish CPGs, the statements were rarely framed with both absolute and relative numeric measures of an intervention's effect. Harms were rarely reported with a grade indicating the level of evidence. The users of CPGs would benefit from more consistent and understandable framing of statements considering both benefits and harms of interventions.

Verbal communication of effect-sizes, possible comparators, and uncertainty of evidence in the Finnish clinical practice guidelines: Omitting effect-sizes and comparators without expressing much uncertainty

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to investigate verbal representations of intervention effect-size, uncertainty of evidence, and possible intervention comparators in statements concerning effects of interventions in Finnish clinical practice guidelines.

METHOD

We selected 10 clinical practice guidelines on common diseases and risk factors published by The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim. All the statements that considered beneficial effects of interventions and that were graded with a level of evidence (levels A, high, to D, very low) were included in analyses. We assessed whether the statements verbally represented intervention effect-size, uncertainty of evidence or a possible comparator, and the reported outcome.

RESULTS

Of 385 statements, verbal representation of beneficial effect-sizes occurred in 25 (6%) statements. Most (72%) statements indicated that intervention had a beneficial effect, but did not specify effect-size. Less than half (42%) of the statements represented uncertainty verbally. Comparisons to placebo or no-treatment were rare (3%) and 18% of the statements compared interventions to other treatments. Against instructions, a considerable part (35%) of statements with B-level evidence did not represent uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Communicating beneficial intervention effects, effect-sizes, possible comparators, and uncertainty of evidence require much broader attention in the clinical practice guideline context.

Communicating personalized risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study

As increasing amounts of data accumulate on the effects of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the risk factors that lead to poor outcomes, it is possible to produce personalized estimates of the risks faced by groups of people with different characteristics. The challenge of how to communicate these then becomes apparent. Based on empirical work (total n = 5520, UK) supported by in-person interviews with the public and physicians, we make recommendations on the presentation of such information. These include: using predominantly percentages when communicating the absolute risk, but also providing, for balance, a format which conveys a contrasting (higher) perception of risk (expected frequency out of 10 000); using a visual linear scale cut at an appropriate point to illustrate the maximum risk, explained through an illustrative 'persona' who might face that highest level of risk; and providing context to the absolute risk through presenting a range of other 'personas' illustrating people who would face risks of a wide range of different levels. These 'personas' should have their major risk factors (age, existing health conditions) described. By contrast, giving people absolute likelihoods of other risks they face in an attempt to add context was considered less helpful. We note that observed effect sizes generally were small. However, even small effects are meaningful and relevant when scaled up to population levels.

Effect of Information about COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Side Effects on Behavioural Intentions: Two Online Experiments

The success of mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns rests on widespread uptake. However, although vaccinations provide good protection, they do not offer full immunity and while they likely reduce transmission of the virus to others, the extent of this remains uncertain. This produces a dilemma for communicators who wish to be transparent about benefits and harms and encourage continued caution in vaccinated individuals but not undermine confidence in an important public health measure. In two large pre-registered experimental studies on quota-sampled UK public participants we investigate the effects of providing transparent communication-including uncertainty-about vaccination effectiveness on decision-making. In Study 1 (n = 2097) we report that detailed information about COVID-19 vaccines, including results of clinical trials, does not have a significant impact on beliefs about the efficacy of such vaccines, concerns over side effects, or intentions to receive a vaccine. Study 2 (n = 2217) addressed concerns that highlighting the need to maintain protective behaviours (e.g., social distancing) post-vaccination may lower perceptions of vaccine efficacy and willingness to receive a vaccine. We do not find evidence of this: transparent messages did not significantly reduce perceptions of vaccine efficacy, and in some cases increased perceptions of efficacy. We again report no main effect of messages on intentions to receive a vaccine. The results of both studies suggest that transparently informing people of the limitations of vaccinations does not reduce intentions to be vaccinated but neither does it increase intentions to engage in protective behaviours post-vaccination.

Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts

BACKGROUND

Decision aid developers have to convey complex task-specific numeric information in a way that minimizes bias and promotes understanding of the options available within a particular decision. Whereas our companion paper summarizes fundamental issues, this article focuses on more complex, task-specific aspects of presenting numeric information in patient decision aids.

METHODS

As part of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards third evidence update, we gathered an expert panel of 9 international experts who revised and expanded the topics covered in the 2013 review working in groups of 2 to 3 to update the evidence, based on their expertise and targeted searches of the literature. The full panel then reviewed and provided additional revisions, reaching consensus on the final version.

RESULTS

Five of the 10 topics addressed more complex task-specific issues. We found strong evidence for using independent event rates and/or incremental absolute risk differences for the effect size of test and screening outcomes. Simple visual formats can help to reduce common judgment biases and enhance comprehension but can be misleading if not well designed. Graph literacy can moderate the effectiveness of visual formats and hence should be considered in tool design. There is less evidence supporting the inclusion of personalized and interactive risk estimates.

DISCUSSION

More complex numeric information. such as the size of the benefits and harms for decision options, can be better understood by using incremental absolute risk differences alongside well-designed visual formats that consider the graph literacy of the intended audience. More research is needed into when and how to use personalized and/or interactive risk estimates because their complexity and accessibility may affect their feasibility in clinical practice.

Communicative and Discursive Perspectives on the Medication Experience

Taking the ‘medication experience’ in the broad sense of what individuals hear and say about their medication, as well as how they experience it, this paper explores diverse research on medication information available to patients and their modes and capacities for interaction, including personal circles, doctors and pharmacists, labeling and promotion, websites, and the patient’s own inner conversations and self-expression. The goal is to illustrate, for nonspecialists in communication, how the actors, messages, mediums, genres, and contextual factors within a standard ethnographic and social semiotic model of discourse and communication are operating, not always effectively or beneficially, to mediate or construct a patient’s medication experience. We also suggest how disparate insights can be integrated through such a model and might generate new research questions.