Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on ‘fact boxes'

Author:

Brick Cameron12ORCID,McDowell Michelle34ORCID,Freeman Alexandra L. J.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK

2. Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, 1012 WX Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3. Harding Center for Risk Literacy, University of Potsdam, 14469 Potsdam, Germany

4. Max Planck Institute for Human Development, 14195 Berlin, Germany

Abstract

Objectives: identifying effective summary formats is fundamental to multiple fields including science communication, systematic reviews, evidence-based policy and medical decision-making. This study tested whether table or text-only formats lead to better comprehension of the potential harms and benefits of different options, here in a medical context. Design: pre-registered, longitudinal experiment: between-subjects factorial 2 (message format) × 2 topic (therapeutic or preventative intervention) on comprehension and later recall (CONSORT-SPI 2018). Setting: longitudinal online survey experiment. Participants: 2305 census-matched UK residents recruited through the survey panel firm YouGov. Primary outcome measure: comprehension of harms and benefits and knowledge recall after six weeks. Results: fact boxes—simple tabular messages—led to more comprehension ( d = 0.39) and slightly more knowledge recall after six weeks ( d = 0.12) compared to the same information in text. These patterns of results were consistent between the two medical topics and across all levels of objective numeracy and education. Fact boxes were rated as more engaging than text, and there were no differences between formats in treatment decisions, feeling informed or trust. Conclusions: the brief table format of the fact box improved the comprehension of harms and benefits relative to the text-only control. Effective communication supports informed consent and decision-making and brings ethical and practical advantages. Fact boxes and other summary formats may be effective in a wide range of communication contexts.

Funder

David and Claudia Harding Foundation

Winton Charitable Foundation

Publisher

The Royal Society

Subject

Multidisciplinary

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3