IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i6p649-660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Separate Single-Outcome Risk Presentations Instead of Integrated Multioutcome Formats Improves Comprehension in Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew J. Wallace

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • E. Hope Weissler

    (Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Jui-Chen Yang

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Laura Brotzman

    (University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Matthew A. Corriere

    (University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Eric A. Secemsky

    (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Jessie Sutphin

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • F. Reed Johnson

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Juan Marcos Gonzalez

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

  • Michelle E. Tarver

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Anindita Saha

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Allen L. Chen

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • David J. Gebben

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Misti Malone

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Andrew Farb

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Olufemi Babalola

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Eva M. Rorer

    (US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA)

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

    (University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Shelby D. Reed

    (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA)

Abstract

Introduction Despite decades of research on risk-communication approaches, questions remain about the optimal methods for conveying risks for different outcomes across multiple time points, which can be necessary in applications such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We sought to compare the effects of 3 design factors: 1) separated versus integrated presentations of the risks for different outcomes, 2) use or omission of icon arrays, and 3) vertical versus horizontal orientation of the time dimension. Methods We conducted a randomized study among a demographically diverse sample of 2,242 US adults recruited from an online panel (mean age 59.8 y, s  = 10.4 y; 21.9% African American) that compared risk-communication approaches that varied in the 3 factors noted above. The primary outcome was the number of correct responses to 12 multiple-choice questions asking survey respondents to identify specific numbers, contrast options to recognize dominance (larger v. smaller risks), and compute differences. We used linear regression to test the effects of the 3 design factors, controlling for health literacy, graph literacy, and numeracy. We also measured choice consistency in a subsequent DCE choice module Results Mean comprehension varied significantly across versions ( P  

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew J. Wallace & E. Hope Weissler & Jui-Chen Yang & Laura Brotzman & Matthew A. Corriere & Eric A. Secemsky & Jessie Sutphin & F. Reed Johnson & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Michelle E. Tarver & Anindit, 2024. "Using Separate Single-Outcome Risk Presentations Instead of Integrated Multioutcome Formats Improves Comprehension in Discrete Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(6), pages 649-660, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:6:p:649-660
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241258466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241258466
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241258466?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. Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel & Aleksandra Jankovic & Holly A. Derry & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 672-680, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Chin, Alycia & VanEpps, Eric M. & Scholl, Brian & Nash, Steven, 2025. "How should I know? Lack of confidence biases stock market expectations toward zero," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    2. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:152-158 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    5. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Stortz, Laura & Lee, Yu Na & Von Massow, Michael, 2020. "Do Front-of-Package Warning Labels Reduce Demand for Foods ‘High In’ Saturated Fat, Sugar, or Sodium?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304581, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Laura D. Scherer & Krithika Suresh & Carmen L. Lewis & Kirsten J. McCaffery & Jolyn Hersch & Joseph N. Cappella & Brad Morse & Channing E. Tate & Bridget S. Mosley & Sarah Schmiege & Marilyn M. Schapi, 2023. "Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Va," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 789-802, October.
    8. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    9. Aseervatham, Vijay & Jaspersen, Johannes G. & Richter, Andreas, 2015. "The affection effect in an incentive compatible insurance demand experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 34-37.
    10. Gignac, Gilles E. & Stevens, Elizabeth M., 2024. "Attitude toward numbers: A better predictor of financial literacy and intelligence than need for cognition," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    11. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2019. "Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 792-804, April.
    12. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Paul Slovic, 2021. "Low numeracy is associated with poor financial well-being around the world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Talya Miron-Shatz & Yaniv Hanoch & Benjamin A. Katz & Glen M. Doniger & Elissa M. Ozanne, 2015. "Willingness to test for BRCA1/2 in high risk women: Influenced by risk perception and family experience, rather than by objective or subjective numeracy?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 386-399, July.
    15. Andrea Kampmann & Burkhard Pedell, 2022. "Using Storytelling to Promote Organizational Resilience: An Experimental Study of Different Forms of Risk Communication," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 695-725, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:412-422 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    20. Tamara Stotz & Angela Bearth & Signe Maria Ghelfi & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Evaluating the Perceived Efficacy of Randomized Security Measures at Airports," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1469-1480, July.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:25-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Becky L. Choma & David Sumantry & Yaniv Hanoch, 2019. "Right-wing ideology and numeracy: A perception of greater ability, but poorer performance," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 412-422, July.
    23. Rebecca Blase & Julia Meis-Harris & Birgitta Weltermann & Simone Dohle, 2024. "Icon Arrays for Medical Risk Communication: Do Icon Type and Color Influence Cardiovascular Risk Perception and Recall?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(6), pages 661-673, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:44:y:2024:i:6:p:649-660. 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.