IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v32y2012i4p545-553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tables or Bar Graphs? Presenting Test Results in Electronic Medical Records

Author

Listed:
  • Noel T. Brewer
  • Melissa B. Gilkey
  • Sarah E. Lillie
  • Bradford W. Hesse
  • Stacey L. Sheridan

Abstract

Background Electronic personal health records offer a promising way to communicate medical test results to patients. We compared the usability of tables and horizontal bar graphs for presenting medical test results electronically. Methods We conducted experiments with a convenience sample of 106 community-dwelling adults. In the first experiment, participants viewed either table or bar graph formats (between subjects) that presented medical test results with normal and abnormal findings. In a second experiment, participants viewed table and bar graph formats (within subjects) that presented test results with normal, borderline, and abnormal findings. Results Participants required less viewing time when using bar graphs rather than tables. This overall difference was due to superior performance of bar graphs in vignettes with many test results. Bar graphs and tables performed equally well with regard to recall accuracy and understanding. In terms of ease of use, participants did not prefer bar graphs to tables when they viewed only one format. When participants viewed both formats, those with experience with bar graphs preferred bar graphs, and those with experience with tables found bar graphs equally easy to use. Preference for bar graphs was strongest when viewing tests with borderline results. Conclusions Compared to horizontal bar graphs, tables required more time and experience to achieve the same results, suggesting that tables can be a more burdensome format to use. The current practice of presenting medical test results in a tabular format merits reconsideration.

Suggested Citation

  • Noel T. Brewer & Melissa B. Gilkey & Sarah E. Lillie & Bradford W. Hesse & Stacey L. Sheridan, 2012. "Tables or Bar Graphs? Presenting Test Results in Electronic Medical Records," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 545-553, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:4:p:545-553
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12441395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12441395
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12441395?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Loes T. E. Kessels & Robert A. C. Ruiter & Nanne K. De Vries & Hein De Vries, 2010. "Understanding the Positive Effects of Graphical Risk Information on Comprehension: Measuring Attention Directed to Written, Tabular, and Graphical Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1387-1398, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Casey Canfield & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, 2017. "Perceptions of electricity-use communications: effects of information, format, and individual differences," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1132-1153, September.
    2. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Borozan, Miloš & Loreta, Cannito & Riccardo, Palumbo, 2022. "Eye-tracking for the study of financial decision-making: A systematic review of the literature," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    2. Mihai Țichindelean & Monica Teodora Țichindelean & Iuliana Cetină & Gheorghe Orzan, 2021. "A Comparative Eye Tracking Study of Usability—Towards Sustainable Web Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-31, September.
    3. Christopher E. Clarke & Jeff Niederdeppe & Helen C. Lundell, 2012. "Narratives and Images Used by Public Communication Campaigns Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Health Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    4. T. Soliman & A. MacLeod & J. D. Mumford & T. P. L. Nghiem & H. T. W. Tan & S. K. Papworth & R. T. Corlett & L. R. Carrasco, 2016. "A Regional Decision Support Scheme for Pest Risk Analysis in Southeast Asia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 904-913, May.
    5. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    6. Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Math J. J. M. Candel & Hein De Vries & Nanne K. De Vries, 2012. "Risk Perception and Information Processing: The Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Self‐Reported Information Processing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 54-66, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:4:p:545-553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.