IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i6p725-729.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utilization of Continuous “Spinners†to Communicate Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel F. Eyler
  • Sara Cordes
  • Benjamin R. Szymanski
  • Liana Fraenkel

Abstract

Background. As patients become more involved in their medical care, they must consider the specific probabilities of both positive and negative outcomes associated with different treatments. Patients who are low in numeracy may be at a disadvantage when making these decisions. This study examined the use of a “spinner†to present probabilistic information compared to a numerical format and icon array. Design. Subjects ( n = 151) were asked to imagine they suffered from chronic back pain. Two equally effective medications, each with a different incidence of rare and common side effects, were described. Subjects were randomized to 1 of 3 risk presentation formats: numeric only, numeric with icon arrays, or numeric with spinners, and answered questions regarding their risk knowledge, medication preference, and how much they liked the presentation format. Results. Compared with the numeric only format, both the spinner and icon array increased risk knowledge and were rated more likeable by subjects. Subjects viewing the spinner format were also more likely to prefer the pill with the lowest side-effect burden. Limitations. The relatively small size, convenience sample, and hypothetical scenario were limitations of this study. Conclusions. The use of continuous spinners presents a new approach for communicating risk to patients that may aid in their decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel F. Eyler & Sara Cordes & Benjamin R. Szymanski & Liana Fraenkel, 2017. "Utilization of Continuous “Spinners†to Communicate Risk," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 725-729, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:725-729
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17707198
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17707198
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17707198?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. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Galesic, Mirta, 2010. "Who proficts from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1019-1025, April.
    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. Kevin E. Tiede & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2023. "How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 803-820, 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. Stefania Pighin & Lucia Savadori & Elisa Barilli & Rino Rumiati & Sara Bonalumi & Maurizio Ferrari & Laura Cremonesi, 2013. "Using Comparison Scenarios to Improve Prenatal Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 48-58, January.
    2. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    3. Stefania Pighin & Lucia Savadori & Elisa Barilli & Laura Cremonesi & Maurizio Ferrari & Jean-François Bonnefon, 2011. "The 1-in-X Effect on the Subjective Assessment of Medical Probabilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 721-729, September.
    4. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    5. Samawiya Aqeel & Danish Ahmed Siddiqui, 2019. "The Effect of Social Media Following on Recruitment in Service Industries of Pakistan," Business Management and Strategy, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(1), pages 41-77, December.
    6. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    7. Aysegul Kanay & Denis Hilton & Laetitia Charalambides & Jean-Baptiste Corrégé & Eva Inaudi & Laurent Waroquier & Stéphane Cézéra, 2021. "Making the carbon basket count: Goal setting promotes sustainable consumption in a simulated online supermarket," Post-Print hal-03403040, HAL.
    8. 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.
    9. Maren Reder & Petra Kolip, 2017. "Does a decision aid improve informed choice in mammography screening? Results from a randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2017. "Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 546-556, March.
    11. Dafina Petrova & Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Edward T. Cokely, 2015. "Understanding the Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(7), pages 847-858, October.
    12. Kevin E. Tiede & Felicia Ripke & Nicole Degen & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2020. "When Does the Incremental Risk Format Aid Informed Medical Decisions? The Role of Learning, Feedback, and Number of Treatment Options," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 212-221, February.
    13. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2018. "Designing Graphs that Promote Both Risk Understanding and Behavior Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 929-946, May.

    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:37:y:2017:i:6:p:725-729. 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.