Search

Objective: To predict the association between demographic, psychological, and medication-specific characteristics and the level of concern about stopping medications among older adults.Design: Cross-sectional study in which participants read 6 vignettes in which a primary care provider broached the idea of stopping a medication. Medications differed in risk, regulatory status, and indication for discontinuation.Setting and Participants: National Web-based survey distributed to adults aged 65 years or older by Dynata in January 2019.Outcome Measures: Participants reported their concern about stopping each medication (7-point scale, not at all to extremely), their preferences for more versus less care (Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale, MMS), medication attitudes (Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire, BMQ), demographic characteristics, and health literacy. We used a generalized estimating equations population-averaged model to examine characteristics associated with concern about stopping medications among all the vignettes and linear regressions to explore levels of concern for individual vignettes. Regressions included the MMS, BMQ, health literacy, and demographics.Results: A total of 942 individuals started the survey, and 823 were included in our analysis. Approximately one-half of participants (range: glyburide, 49.5% to aspirin, 56.0%) reported substantial concern (≥ 4 on a 1-7 scale) about stopping each medication. Characteristics that significantly increased concern about stopping medications included female gender, identifying as black or African American, higher MMS score, and higher BMQ specific score. Higher MMS score predicted increased concern about stopping medications for each of the 6 medications.Conclusion: Characteristics of older adults (e.g., medical maximizing-minimizing preferences), as opposed to medication-specific characteristics, predict concern about stopping medications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A targeted, improv-based exercise was developed as a novel skills training approach to bad news disclosure for medical professionals and trainees, focusing on specific characteristics that influence these conversations including nature of the bad news, implications, personal responsibility, and status differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Medical over- and underutilization are central problems that stand in the way of delivering optimal health care. As a result, one important question is how people decide to take action, versus not, when it comes to their health. The present article proposes and validates a new measure that captures the extent to which individuals are "medical maximizers" who are predisposed to seek health care even for minor problems, versus "medical minimizers" who prefer to avoid medical intervention unless it is necessary. Method: Studies 1-3 recruited participants using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Study 1 conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify items relevant to the proposed construct. In Study 2 confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the identified items, as well as tests of internal, discriminant, and convergent validity. Study 3 examined test-retest reliability of the scale. Study 4 validated the scale in a non-Internet sample. Results: EFA identified 10 items consistent with the proposed construct, and subsequent CFA showed that the 10 items were best understood with a bifactor model that assessed a single underlying construct consistent with medical maximizing-minimizing, with 3 of the 10 items cross-loading on another independent factor. The scale was distinct from hypochondriasis, distrust in medicine, health care access, and health status, and predicted self-reported health care utilization and a variety of treatment preferences. Conclusions: Individuals have general preferences to maximize versus minimize their use of health care, and these preferences are predictive of health care utilization and treatment preferences across a range of health care contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Decision aids (DAs) play an increasingly critical role in supporting patients in making preference-sensitive treatment decisions. One largely untested assumption of DA design is that patients should be encouraged to deliberate carefully about their options after being informed of those options. The purpose of the present research is to test the impact of deliberative versus intuitive decision strategies in medical decision contexts. Method: In 3 experiments, participants were randomly assigned to make a hypothetical medical decision either intuitively, or using various deliberative strategies. In Study 1, we predicted that deliberation would improve decision confidence while not changing decisions. In Study 2, our aim was to establish whether the observed increase in confidence was due to decision-making effort, confirmation bias, or both. In Study 3, it was predicted that deliberation would cause participants to become more confident in suboptimal decisions. Results: Across 3 studies, participants who deliberated felt better about their decisions and decision process, even when the decision was the same as what would have been chosen intuitively (Studies 1 and 2), and even when the decision was normatively bad (Study 3). Study 2 additionally indicated that participants' confidence was driven by confirmation bias rather than effort justification. Conclusions: Deliberative tasks may often fail to be an effective debiasing tool, and components of patient decision aids that ask patients to deliberate may serve to improve how patients feel without improving the quality of their decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To characterize the medical history, disease progression, and treatment of current-era patients with the rare diseases Fontan-associated protein-losing enteropathy (PLE) and plastic bronchitis. Study design A novel survey that queried demographics, medical details, and treatment information was piloted and placed online via a Facebook portal, allowing social media to power the study. Participation regardless of PLE or plastic bronchitis diagnosis was allowed. Case control analyses compared patients with PLE and plastic bronchitis with uncomplicated control patients receiving the Fontan procedure. Results The survey was completed by 671 subjects, including 76 with PLE, 46 with plastic bronchitis, and 7 with both. Median PLE diagnosis was 2.5 years post-Fontan. Hospitalization for PLE occurred in 71% with 41% hospitalized =3 times. Therapy varied significantly. Patients with PLE more commonly had hypoplastic left ventricle (62% vs 44% control; OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.43-5.53), chylothorax (66% vs 41%; OR 2.96, CI 1.65-5.31), and cardiothoracic surgery in addition to staged palliation (17% vs 5%; OR 4.27, CI 1.63-11.20). Median plastic bronchitis diagnosis was 2 years post-Fontan. Hospitalization for plastic bronchitis occurred in 91% with 61% hospitalized =3 times. Therapy was very diverse. Patients with plastic bronchitis more commonly had chylothorax at any surgery (72% vs 51%; OR 2.47, CI 1.20-5.08) and seasonal allergies (52% vs 36%; OR 1.98, CI 1.01-3.89). Conclusions Patient-specific factors are associated with diagnoses of PLE or plastic bronchitis. Treatment strategies are diverse without clear patterns. These results provide a foundation upon which to design future therapeutic studies and identify a clear need for forming consensus approaches to treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patients with chronic health conditions usually place higher utility on their condition than the public does. One explanation for this discrepancy is that healthy people focus on the negative aspects of the condition without considering their own ability to emotionally adapt to the condition over time. The aim of this randomized experimental study was to test whether people would give higher utility ratings for chronic health conditions when they were encouraged to consider their own ability to adapt to difficult situations before giving their ratings. Main Outcome Measure: Utility ratings for four chronic health conditions. Results: The authors presented scenarios describing 4 chronic health conditions to 1,117 respondents drawn from a demographically balanced U.S. Internet panel. The adaptation exercise did not influence respondents' valuations. However, utility values increasingly improved with decreasing ratings of how upsetting it would be to live with the condition over time. Conclusion: The authors speculate that asking people to think about adaptation changes their evaluations of what it would feel like to live with chronic illness, but doing so does not change how much they are willing to trade off to avoid that chronic illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether older adults would avoid going to the pharmacy (e.g., by restricting medications or requesting delivery) due to the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Our secondary objectives were to determine the types of medications that the older adults are more likely to restrict and to determine the factors that influence these decisions.Design: Cross-sectional survey experiment in which participants read 6 scenarios, each stating that they had a 3-day supply of a particular medication remaining.Setting and Participants: National Web-based survey distributed to 1457 U.S. adults aged 65 years and older by Dynata from March 25, 2020, to April 1, 2020.Outcome Measures: Participants reported whether they would go to a pharmacy, have a medication delivered, or restrict the use of each medication. They reported their perceptions and experiences with COVID-19, health risk factors, preferences for more or less care (medical maximizer-minimizer), medication attitudes (beliefs about medicines questionnaire), health literacy, prescription insurance status, and demographics.Results: Most participants (84%) were told to shelter in place, but only 12% reported attempting to obtain extra medications. Participants most often reported that they would go to the pharmacy to obtain each medication (ranging from tramadol 48.9% to insulin 64.9%) except for zolpidem, which they were most likely to restrict (45.4%). Participants who reported comorbidities that increased their risk of COVID-19 were just as likely to go to the pharmacy as those without. In multinomial logistic regression analyses, women and the oldest participants were more likely to seek delivery of medications. Restricting medications was most common for 2 symptom-focused medications (tramadol and zolpidem), and both demographic factors (e.g., gender) and beliefs (e.g., medical maximizing-minimizing preferences) were associated with such decisions.Conclusion: Many older adults intend to continue to go to the pharmacy to obtain their medications during a pandemic, even those who have health conditions that further increase their risk for COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most displays of laboratory test results include a standard reference range. For some patients (eg, those with chronic conditions), however, getting a result within the standard range may be unachievable, inappropriate, or even harmful.Objective: The objective of our study was to test the impact of including clinically appropriate goal ranges outside the standard range in the visual displays of laboratory test results.Methods: Participants (N=6776) from a demographically diverse Web-based panel viewed hypothetical glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) test results (HbA1c either 6.2% or 8.2%) as part of a type 2 diabetes management scenario. Test result visual displays included either a standard range (4.5%-5.7%) only, a goal range (6.5%-7.5%) added to the standard range, or the goal range only. The results were displayed in 1 of the following 3 display formats: (1) a table; (2) a simple, two-colored number line (simple line); or (3) a number line with diagnostic categories indicated via colored blocks (block line). Primary outcome measures were comprehension of and negative reactions to test results.Results: While goal range information did not influence the understanding of HbA1c=8.2% results, the goal range only display produced higher levels of comprehension and decreased negative reactions to HbA1c=6.2% test results compared with the no goal range and goal range added conditions. Goal range information was less helpful in the block line condition versus the other formats.Conclusions: Replacing the standard range with a clinically appropriate goal range could help patients better understand how their test results relate to their personal targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women with chronic medical conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, have a higher risk of pregnancy-related complications compared with women without medical conditions and should be offered contraception if desired. Although evidence based guidelines for contraceptive selection in the presence of medical conditions are available via the United States Medical Eligibility Criteria (US MEC), these guidelines are underutilized. Research also supports the use of decision tools to promote shared decision making between patients and providers during contraceptive counseling. Objective: The overall goal of the MiHealth, MiChoice project is to design and implement a theory-driven, Web-based tool that incorporates the US MEC (provider-level intervention) within the vehicle of a contraceptive decision tool for women with chronic medical conditions (patient-level intervention) in community-based primary care settings (practice-level intervention). This will be a 3-phase study that includes a predesign phase, a design phase, and a testing phase in a randomized controlled trial. This study protocol describes phase 1 and aim 1, which is to determine patient-, provider-, and practice-level factors that are relevant to the design and implementation of the contraceptive decision tool. Methods: This is a mixed methods implementation study. To customize the delivery of the US MEC in the decision tool, we selected high-priority constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework to drive data collection and analysis at the practice and provider level, respectively. A conceptual model that incorporates constructs from the transtheoretical model and the health beliefs model undergirds patient-level data collection and analysis and will inform customization of the decision tool for this population. We will recruit 6 community-based primary care practices and conduct quantitative surveys and semistructured qualitative interviews with women who have chronic medical conditions, their primary care providers (PCPs), and clinic staff, as well as field observations of practice activities. Quantitative survey data will be summarized with simple descriptive statistics and relationships between participant characteristics and contraceptive recommendations (for PCPs), and current contraceptive use (for patients) will be examined using Fisher exact test. We will conduct thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews and field observations. The integration of data will occur by comparing, contrasting, and synthesizing qualitative and quantitative findings to inform the future development and implementation of the intervention. Results: We are currently enrolling practices and anticipate study completion in 15 months. Conclusions: This protocol describes the first phase of a multiphase mixed methods study to develop and implement a Web-based decision tool that is customized to meet the needs of women with chronic medical conditions in primary care settings. Study findings will promote contraceptive counseling via shared decision making and reflect evidence-based guidelines for contraceptive selection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03153644; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03153644 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yUkA5lK8) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-facing displays of laboratory test results typically provide patients with one reference point (the "standard range").Objective: To test the effect of including an additional harm anchor reference point in visual displays of laboratory test results, which indicates how far outside of the standard range values would need to be in order to suggest substantial patient risk.Methods: Using a demographically diverse, online sample, we compared the reactions of 1618 adults in the United States who viewed visual line displays that included both standard range and harm anchor reference points ("Many doctors are not concerned until here") to displays that included either (1) only a standard range, (2) standard range plus evaluative categories (eg, "borderline high"), or (3) a color gradient showing degree of deviation from the standard range.Results: Providing the harm anchor reference point significantly reduced perceived urgency of close-to-normal alanine aminotransferase and creatinine results (P values <.001) but not generally for platelet count results. Notably, display type did not significantly alter perceptions of more extreme results in potentially harmful ranges. Harm anchors also substantially reduced the number of participants who wanted to contact their doctor urgently or go to the hospital about these test results.Conclusions: Presenting patients with evaluative cues regarding when test results become clinically concerning can reduce the perceived urgency of out-of-range results that do not require immediate clinical action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the decisions of pediatric primary care physicians about their diagnostic evaluation for a child with suspected global developmental delay (GDD).Study Design: A survey was mailed to a sample of pediatricians (n = 600) and family physicians (n = 600) randomly selected from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The survey contained a clinical vignette describing a 9-month-old nondysmorphic boy with GDD. Participants were asked their initial evaluation steps (test, refer, or both test and refer) and what types of referral and/or testing they would pursue. We examined bivariate associations between physician/clinical practice characteristics and participants' evaluation decision.Results: More pediatricians than family physicians completed the survey (response rates: 55% vs 38%). Almost three-quarters of the respondents (74%) reported that their first step in a diagnostic evaluation would be to refer the child without testing, 22% would test only, and 4% would both test and refer. As their initial step, most physicians referred to a developmental pediatrician (58%), and only 5% would refer to a geneticist. The most commonly ordered test was general biochemical testing (64%). The most commonly ordered genetic test was a karyotype (39%).Conclusions: When evaluating a child with GDD, few primary care physicians would order genetic testing or refer to a genetics specialist as a first evaluation step. Future studies should examine both barriers to and utilization of a genetic evaluation for children with GDD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing numbers of patients have direct access to laboratory test results outside of clinical consultations. This offers increased opportunities for both self-management of chronic conditions and advance preparation for clinic visits if patients are able to identify test results that are outside the reference ranges. Objective: Our objective was to assess whether adults can identify laboratory blood test values outside reference ranges when presented in a format similar to some current patient portals implemented within electronic health record (EHR) systems. Methods: In an Internet-administered survey, adults aged 40-70 years, approximately half with diabetes, were asked to imagine that they had type 2 diabetes. They were shown laboratory test results displayed in a standard tabular format. We randomized hemoglobin A1c values to be slightly (7.1%) or moderately (8.4%) outside the reference range and randomized other test results to be within or outside their reference ranges (ie, multiple deviations). We assessed (1) whether respondents identified the hemoglobin A1c level as outside the reference range, (2) how respondents rated glycemic control, and (3) whether they would call their doctor. We also measured numeracy and health literacy. Results: Among the 1817 adult participants, viewing test results with multiple deviations increased the probability of identifying hemoglobin A1c values as outside the reference range (participants with diabetes: OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12-1.92, P=.005; participants without diabetes: OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.13-2.00, P=.005). Both numeracy and health literacy were significant predictors of correctly identifying out-of-range values. For participants with diabetes, numeracy OR 1.32 per unit on a 1-6 scale (95% CI 1.15-1.51, P<.001) and literacy OR 1.59 per unit of a 1-5 scale (95% CI 1.35-1.87, P<.001); for participants without diabetes, numeracy OR 1.36 per unit (95% CI 1.17-1.58, P<.001) and literacy OR 1.33 per unit (95% CI 1.12-1.58, P=.001). Predicted probabilities suggested 77% of higher numeracy and health literacy participants, but only 38% of lower numeracy and literacy participants, could correctly identify the hemoglobin A1c levels as outside the reference range. Correct identification reduced perceived blood glucose control (mean difference 1.68-1.71 points on a 0-10 scale, P<.001). For participants with diabetes, increased health literacy reduced the likelihood of calling one's doctor when hemoglobin A1c=7.1% (OR 0.66 per unit, 95% CI 0.52-0.82, P<.001) and increased numeracy increased intention to call when hemoglobin A1c=8.4% (OR 1.36 per unit, 95% CI 1.10-1.69, P=.005). Conclusions: Limited health literacy and numeracy skills are significant barriers to basic use of laboratory test result data as currently presented in some EHR portals. Regarding contacting their doctor, less numerate and literate participants with diabetes appear insensitive to the hemoglobin A1c level shown, whereas highly numerate and literate participants with diabetes appear very sensitive. Alternate approaches appear necessary to make test results more meaningful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although split-dose bowel regimen is recommended in colon cancer screening and surveillance guidelines, implementation in clinical practice has seemingly lagged because of concerns of patient compliance. Objectives: To assess patient compliance with the split-dose bowel regimen and assess patient- and preparation process–related factors associated with compliance and bowel preparation adequacy. Design: Prospective survey cohort. Setting: Tertiary care setting. Patients: Average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening between August 2011 and January 2013. Main Outcome Measurements: Split-dose bowel regimen patient-reported compliance and bowel preparation adequacy with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score. Results: Surveys and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score data were completed in 462 participants; 15.4% were noncompliant with the split-dose bowel regimen, and suboptimal bowel preparation (score <5) was reported in 16% of all procedures. White (P = .009) and married (P = .01) subjects were least likely to be noncompliant, whereas Hispanic subjects and those who reported incomes of US$75,000 or less were most likely to be noncompliant (P = .004). Participants who were noncompliant with split-dosing were less likely to follow the other laxative instructions and more likely to have their colonoscopy appointment before 10:30 am. Compliance differed by bowel preparation type (P = .003, χ2 test), with those who used MiraLAX showing the highest compliance, followed by polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution and other bowel preparations. Noncompliance with split-dose bowel preparation (odds ratio 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-14.2) was the strongest predictor of suboptimal bowel preparation. Limitations: Patient self-report, performed at tertiary care center. Conclusions: Overall, 1 in 7 patients do not comply with a split-dose bowel regimen. Ensuring compliance with the split-dose bowel regimen will reduce the risk of a suboptimal bowel preparation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Risk communication involves conveying two inherently difficult concepts about the nature of risk: the underlying random distribution of outcomes and how a population-based proportion applies to an individual. Objective: The objective of this study was to test whether 4 design factors in icon arrays -- animated random dispersal of risk events, avatars to represent an individual, personalization (operationalized as choosing the avatar's color), and a moving avatar -- might help convey randomness and how a given risk applies to an individual, thereby better aligning risk perceptions with risk estimates. Methods: A diverse sample of 3630 adults with no previous heart disease or stroke completed an online nested factorial experiment in which they entered personal health data into a risk calculator that estimated 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease based on a robust and validated model. We randomly assigned them to view their results in 1 of 10 risk graphics that used different combinations of the 4 design factors. We measured participants' risk perceptions as our primary outcome, as well as behavioral intentions and recall of the risk estimate. We also assessed subjective numeracy, whether or not participants knew anyone who had died of cardiovascular causes, and whether or not they knew their blood pressure and cholesterol as potential moderators. Results: Animated randomness was associated with better alignment between risk estimates and risk perceptions (F1,3576=6.12, P=.01); however, it also led to lower scores on healthy lifestyle intentions (F1,3572=11.1, P<.001). Using an avatar increased risk perceptions overall (F1,3576=4.61, P=.03) and most significantly increased risk perceptions among those who did not know a particular person who had experienced the grave outcomes of cardiovascular disease (F1,3576=5.88, P=.02). Using an avatar also better aligned actual risk estimates with intentions to see a doctor (F1,3556=6.38, P=.01). No design factors had main effects on recall, but animated randomness was associated with better recall for those at lower risk and worse recall for those at higher risk (F1,3544=7.06, P=.01). Conclusions: Animated randomness may help people better understand the random nature of risk. However, in the context of cardiovascular risk, such understanding may result in lower healthy lifestyle intentions. Therefore, whether or not to display randomness may depend on whether one's goal is to persuade or to inform. Avatars show promise for helping people grasp how population-based statistics map to an individual case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous research has examined the impact of patient narratives on treatment choices, but to our knowledge, no study has examined the effect of narratives on information search. Further, no research has considered the relative impact of their format (text vs video) on health care decisions in a single study. Objective: Our goal was to examine the impact of video and text-based narratives on information search in a Web-based patient decision aid for early stage breast cancer. Methods: Fifty-six women were asked to imagine that they had been diagnosed with early stage breast cancer and needed to choose between two surgical treatments (lumpectomy with radiation or mastectomy). Participants were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a Web decision aid. Two versions of the decision aid included videos of interviews with patients and physicians or videos of interviews with physicians only. To distinguish between the effect of narratives and the effect of videos, we created two text versions of the Web decision aid by replacing the patient and physician interviews with text transcripts of the videos. Participants could freely browse the Web decision aid until they developed a treatment preference. We recorded participants' eye movements using the Tobii 1750 eye-tracking system equipped with Tobii Studio software. A priori, we defined 24 areas of interest (AOIs) in the Web decision aid. These AOIs were either separate pages of the Web decision aid or sections within a single page covering different content. Results: We used multilevel modeling to examine the effect of narrative presence, narrative format, and their interaction on information search. There was a significant main effect of condition, P=.02; participants viewing decision aids with patient narratives spent more time searching for information than participants viewing the decision aids without narratives. The main effect of format was not significant, P=.10. However, there was a significant condition by format interaction on fixation duration, P<.001. When comparing the two video decision aids, participants viewing the narrative version spent more time searching for information than participants viewing the control version of the decision aid. In contrast, participants viewing the narrative version of the text decision aid spent less time searching for information than participants viewing the control version of the text decision aid. Further, narratives appear to have a global effect on information search; these effects were not limited to specific sections of the decision aid that contained topics discussed in the patient stories. Conclusions: The observed increase in fixation duration with video patient testimonials is consistent with the idea that the vividness of the video content could cause greater elaboration of the message, thereby encouraging greater information search. Conversely, because reading requires more effortful processing than watching, reading patient narratives may have decreased participant motivation to engage in more reading in the remaining sections of the Web decision aid. These findings suggest that the format of patient stories may be equally as important as their content in determining their effect on decision making. More research is needed to understand why differences in format result in fundamental differences in information search. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The increasing use of computer-administered risk communications affords the potential to replace static risk graphics with animations that use motion cues to reinforce key risk messages. Research on the use of animated graphics, however, has yielded mixed findings, and little research exists to identify the specific animations that might improve risk knowledge and patients' decision making.Objective: To test whether viewing animated forms of standard pictograph (icon array) risk graphics displaying risks of side effects would improve people's ability to select the treatment with the lowest risk profile, as compared with viewing static images of the same risks.Methods: A total of 4198 members of a demographically diverse Internet panel read a scenario about two hypothetical treatments for thyroid cancer. Each treatment was described as equally effective but varied in side effects (with one option slightly better than the other). Participants were randomly assigned to receive all risk information in 1 of 10 pictograph formats in a quasi-factorial design. We compared a control condition of static grouped icons with a static scattered icon display and with 8 Flash-based animated versions that incorporated different combinations of (1) building the risk 1 icon at a time, (2) having scattered risk icons settle into a group, or (3) having scattered risk icons shuffle themselves (either automatically or by user control). We assessed participants' ability to choose the better treatment (choice accuracy), their gist knowledge of side effects (knowledge accuracy), and their graph evaluation ratings, controlling for subjective numeracy and need for cognition.Results: When compared against static grouped-icon arrays, no animations significantly improved any outcomes, and most showed significant performance degradations. However, participants who received animations of grouped icons in which at-risk icons appeared 1 at a time performed as well on all outcomes as the static grouped-icon control group. Displays with scattered icons (static or animated) performed particularly poorly unless they included the settle animation that allowed users to view event icons grouped.Conclusions: Many combinations of animation, especially those with scattered icons that shuffle randomly, appear to inhibit knowledge accuracy in this context. Static pictographs that group risk icons, however, perform very well on measures of knowledge and choice accuracy. These findings parallel recent evidence in other data communication contexts that less can be more-that is, that simpler, more focused information presentation can result in improved understanding. Decision aid designers and health educators should proceed with caution when considering the use of animated risk graphics to compare two risks, given that evidence-based, static risk graphics appear optimal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The increasing use of computer-administered risk communications affords the potential to replace static risk graphics with animations that use motion cues to reinforce key risk messages. Research on the use of animated graphics, however, has yielded mixed findings, and little research exists to identify the specific animations that might improve risk knowledge and patients' decision making. Objective: To test whether viewing animated forms of standard pictograph (icon array) risk graphics displaying risks of side effects would improve people's ability to select the treatment with the lowest risk profile, as compared with viewing static images of the same risks. Methods: A total of 4198 members of a demographically diverse Internet panel read a scenario about two hypothetical treatments for thyroid cancer. Each treatment was described as equally effective but varied in side effects (with one option slightly better than the other). Participants were randomly assigned to receive all risk information in 1 of 10 pictograph formats in a quasi-factorial design. We compared a control condition of static grouped icons with a static scattered icon display and with 8 Flash-based animated versions that incorporated different combinations of (1) building the risk 1 icon at a time, (2) having scattered risk icons settle into a group, or (3) having scattered risk icons shuffle themselves (either automatically or by user control). We assessed participants' ability to choose the better treatment (choice accuracy), their gist knowledge of side effects (knowledge accuracy), and their graph evaluation ratings, controlling for subjective numeracy and need for cognition. Results: When compared against static grouped-icon arrays, no animations significantly improved any outcomes, and most showed significant performance degradations. However, participants who received animations of grouped icons in which at-risk icons appeared 1 at a time performed as well on all outcomes as the static grouped-icon control group. Displays with scattered icons (static or animated) performed particularly poorly unless they included the settle animation that allowed users to view event icons grouped. Conclusions: Many combinations of animation, especially those with scattered icons that shuffle randomly, appear to inhibit knowledge accuracy in this context. Static pictographs that group risk icons, however, perform very well on measures of knowledge and choice accuracy. These findings parallel recent evidence in other data communication contexts that less can be more--that is, that simpler, more focused information presentation can result in improved understanding. Decision aid designers and health educators should proceed with caution when considering the use of animated risk graphics to compare two risks, given that evidence-based, static risk graphics appear optimal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Paper-based patient decision aids generally present risk information using numbers and/or static images. However, limited psychological research has suggested that when people interactively graph risk information, they process the statistics more actively, making the information more available for decision making. Such interactive tools could potentially be incorporated in a new generation of Web-based decision aids. Objective: The objective of our study was to investigate whether interactive graphics detailing the risk of side effects of two treatments improve knowledge and decision making over standard risk graphics. Methods: A total of 3371 members of a demographically diverse Internet panel viewed a hypothetical scenario about two hypothetical treatments for thyroid cancer. Each treatment had a chance of causing 1 of 2 side effects, but we randomly varied whether one treatment was better on both dimensions (strong dominance condition), slightly better on only one dimension (mild dominance condition), or better on one dimension but worse on the other (trade-off condition) than the other treatment. We also varied whether respondents passively viewed the risk information in static pictograph (icon array) images or actively manipulated the information by using interactive Flash-based animations of "fill-in-the-blank" pictographs. Our primary hypothesis was that active manipulation would increase respondents' ability to recognize dominance (when available) and choose the better treatment. Results: The interactive risk graphic conditions had significantly worse survey completion rates (1110/1695, 65.5% vs 1316/1659, 79.3%, P < .001) than the static image conditions. In addition, respondents using interactive graphs were less likely to recognize and select the dominant treatment option (234/380, 61.6% vs 343/465, 73.8%, P < .001 in the strong dominance condition). Conclusions: Interactivity, however visually appealing, can both add to respondent burden and distract people from understanding relevant statistical information. Decision-aid developers need to be aware that interactive risk presentations may create worse outcomes than presentations of static risk graphic formats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Online risk calculators offer different levels of precision in their risk estimates. People interpret numbers in varying ways depending on how they are presented, and we do not know how the number of decimal places displayed might influence perceptions of risk estimates. Objective: The objective of our study was to determine whether precision (ie, number of decimals) in risk estimates offered by an online risk calculator influences users' ratings of (1) how believable the estimate is, (2) risk magnitude (ie, how large or small the risk feels to them), and (3) how well they can recall the risk estimate after a brief delay. Methods: We developed two mock risk calculator websites that offered hypothetical percentage estimates of participants' lifetime risk of kidney cancer. Participants were randomly assigned to a condition where the risk estimate value rose with increasing precision (2, 2.1, 2.13, 2.133) or the risk estimate value fell with increasing precision (2, 1.9, 1.87, 1.867). Within each group, participants were randomly assigned one of the four numbers as their first risk estimate, and later received one of the remaining three as a comparison. Results: Participants who completed the experiment (N = 3422) were a demographically diverse online sample, approximately representative of the US adult population on age, gender, and race. Participants whose risk estimates had no decimal places gave the highest ratings of believability (F[sub 3,3384] = 2.94, P = .03) and the lowest ratings of risk magnitude (F[sub 3,3384] = 4.70, P = .003). Compared to estimates with decimal places, integer estimates were judged as highly believable by 7%-10% more participants (?23 =17.8, P < .001). When comparing two risk estimates with different levels of precision, large majorities of participants reported that the numbers seemed equivalent across all measures. Both exact and approximate recall were highest for estimates with zero decimals. Odds ratios (OR) for correct approximate recall (defined as being within 50% of the original estimate) were, for one decimal place, OR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.49-0.86), for two decimal places, OR = 0.70 (95% CI 0.53-0.94), and for three decimal places, 0.61 (95% CI 0.45-0.81). Exact recall showed a similar pattern, with larger effects. Conclusions: There are subtle but measurable differences in how people interpret risk estimates of varying precision. Adding decimal places in risk calculators offers little to no benefit and some cost. Rounding to the nearest integer is likely preferable for communicating risk estimates via risk calculators so that they might be remembered correctly and judged as believable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately half of American adults do not meet recommended physical activity guidelines. Face-to-face lifestyle interventions improve health outcomes but are unlikely to yield population-level improvements because they can be difficult to disseminate, expensive to maintain, and inconvenient for the recipient. In contrast, Internet-based behavior change interventions can be disseminated widely at a lower cost. However, the impact of some Internet-mediated programs is limited by high attrition rates. Online communities that allow participants to communicate with each other by posting and reading messages may decrease participant attrition. Objective: Our objective was to measure the impact of adding online community features to an Internet-mediated walking program on participant attrition and average daily step counts. Methods: This randomized controlled trial included sedentary, ambulatory adults who used email regularly and had at least 1 of the following: overweight (body mass index [BMI] = 25), type 2 diabetes, or coronary artery disease. All participants (n = 324) wore enhanced pedometers throughout the 16-week intervention and uploaded step-count data to the study server. Participants could log in to the study website to view graphs of their walking progress, individually-tailored motivational messages, and weekly calculated goals. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 versions of a Web-based walking program. Those randomized to the "online community" arm could post and read messages with other participants while those randomized to the "no online community" arm could not read or post messages. The main outcome measures were participant attrition and average daily step counts over 16 weeks. Multiple regression analyses assessed the effect of the online community access controlling for age, sex, disease status, BMI, and baseline step counts. Results: Both arms significantly increased their average daily steps between baseline and the end of the intervention period, but there were no significant differences in increase in step counts between arms using either intention-to-treat or completers analysis. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the average step count increase across both arms was 1888 ± 2400 steps. The percentage of completers was 13% higher in the online community arm than the no online community arm (online community arm, 79%, no online community arm, 66%, P = .02). In addition, online community arm participants remained engaged in the program longer than no online community arm participants (hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.25 - 0.90, P = .02). Participants with lower baseline social support posted more messages to the online community (P < .001) and viewed more posts (P < .001) than participants with higher baseline social support. Conclusion: Adding online community features to an Internet-mediated walking program did not increase average daily step counts but did reduce participant attrition. Participants with low baseline social support used the online community features more than those with high baseline social support. Thus, online communities may be a promising approach to reducing attrition from online health behavior change interventions, particularly in populations with low social support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We tested whether adding interpretive labels (eg, "negative test") to prenatal genetic screening test results changes perceived risk and preferences for amniocentesis.Study Design: Women (N = 1688) completed a hypothetical pregnancy scenario on the Internet. We randomly assigned participants into 2 groups: high risk of fetal chromosomal problems (12.5/1000) or low risk (2/1000). After prenatal screening, estimated risk was identical (5/1000) for all participants, but results were provided either alone or with interpretive labels.Results: When receiving test results without labels, all participants react similarly. With labels, the participants who received "positive" or "abnormal" results reported a higher perceived risk (P < .001), greater worry (P < .001), and greater interest in amniocentesis (57% vs 37%; P < .001) than did the participants who received "negative" or "normal" results.Conclusion: Interpretive labels for test results can induce larger changes to a woman's risk perception and behavioral intention than can numeric results alone, which create decision momentum. This finding has broad clinical implications for patient-provider communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We tested whether adding interpretive labels (eg, “negative test”) to prenatal genetic screening test results changes perceived risk and preferences for amniocentesis. Study Design: Women (N = 1688) completed a hypothetical pregnancy scenario on the Internet. We randomly assigned participants into 2 groups: high risk of fetal chromosomal problems (12.5/1000) or low risk (2/1000). After prenatal screening, estimated risk was identical (5/1000) for all participants, but results were provided either alone or with interpretive labels. Results: When receiving test results without labels, all participants react similarly. With labels, the participants who received “positive” or “abnormal” results reported a higher perceived risk (P < .001), greater worry (P < .001), and greater interest in amniocentesis (57% vs 37%; P < .001) than did the participants who received “negative” or “normal” results. Conclusion: Interpretive labels for test results can induce larger changes to a woman’s risk perception and behavioral intention than can numeric results alone, which create decision momentum. This finding has broad clinical implications for patient–provider communication. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]