Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Earlier research shows that the format used to present treatment outcomes influences consumers' and health professionals' decisions but has not investigated which presentation format helps people to make choices most consistent with their own values. One would expect that as the relative importance people place on the consequences of a particular decision, such as taking penicillin for sore throat, increase, on average, increasing proportions of people would choose to take the medication, if they are well informed.
Objectives: To find out which graphical display of treatment effects of penicillin on sore throat leads to decisions most congruent with the decision maker's preferences, i.e. the relative importance of the beneficial and detrimental consequences of taking penicillin.
Methods: The study was conducted on the Internet among viewers recruited on a weekly Norwegian health television program. The relative importance of four consequences of taking penicillin for sore throat were elicited using visual analogue scales (VAS). Participants were randomised to view one of four graphical presentations of the effect of penicillin on sore throat or to a control group that did not receive any information (Figure 1) and asked whether or not they would go to the doctor to ask for treatment for sore throat. They then viewed all graphical presentations and were asked to reconsider their decision. The second decision was regarded as the most well-informed decision. Analysis was by means of logistic regression.
Results: The group that was presented the bar graph showing duration of symptoms made decisions that were most consistent with the most well-informed decision.(figure 1c) The groups that were presented smiley faces (figure 1b) and bar graphs with frequencies of sore throat at 3 days (figure 1a) appear to deviate most from the most well-informed decision. The presentation most liked (38%) was the bar graph showing duration (figure 1c) and the happy-face presentation (figure 1b) was least liked (14%).
Conclusions: There was clear association between the values that participants expressed and the decisions they made. It is not clear to what extent the results can be applied to other conditions or to communication on other media than Internet.
Objectives: To find out which graphical display of treatment effects of penicillin on sore throat leads to decisions most congruent with the decision maker's preferences, i.e. the relative importance of the beneficial and detrimental consequences of taking penicillin.
Methods: The study was conducted on the Internet among viewers recruited on a weekly Norwegian health television program. The relative importance of four consequences of taking penicillin for sore throat were elicited using visual analogue scales (VAS). Participants were randomised to view one of four graphical presentations of the effect of penicillin on sore throat or to a control group that did not receive any information (Figure 1) and asked whether or not they would go to the doctor to ask for treatment for sore throat. They then viewed all graphical presentations and were asked to reconsider their decision. The second decision was regarded as the most well-informed decision. Analysis was by means of logistic regression.
Results: The group that was presented the bar graph showing duration of symptoms made decisions that were most consistent with the most well-informed decision.(figure 1c) The groups that were presented smiley faces (figure 1b) and bar graphs with frequencies of sore throat at 3 days (figure 1a) appear to deviate most from the most well-informed decision. The presentation most liked (38%) was the bar graph showing duration (figure 1c) and the happy-face presentation (figure 1b) was least liked (14%).
Conclusions: There was clear association between the values that participants expressed and the decisions they made. It is not clear to what extent the results can be applied to other conditions or to communication on other media than Internet.
PDF