Risk Ladder,Table,or Bulleted List? Identifying Formats That Effectively Communicate Personalized Risk and Risk Reduction Information for Multiple Diseases
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2021
Risk Ladder,Table,or Bulleted List? Identifying Formats That Effectively Communicate Personalized Risk and Risk Reduction Information for Multiple Diseases
Personalized medicine may increase the amount of probabilistic information patients encounter. Little guidance exists about communicating risk for multiple diseases simultaneously or about communicating how changes in risk factors affect risk (hereafter “risk reduction”).
Purpose
To determine how to communicate personalized risk and risk reduction information for up to 5 diseases associated with insufficient physical activity in a way laypeople can understand and that increases intentions.
Methods
We recruited 500 participants with <150 min weekly of physical activity from community settings. Participants completed risk assessments for diabetes, heart disease, stroke, colon cancer, and breast cancer (women only) on a smartphone. Then, they were randomly assigned to view personalized risk and risk reduction information organized as a bulleted list, a simplified table, or a specialized vertical bar graph (“risk ladder”). Last, they completed a questionnaire assessing outcomes. Personalized risk and risk reduction information was presented as categories (e.g., “very low”). Our analytic sample (N = 372) included 41.3% individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds, 15.9% with vocational-technical training or less, 84.7% women, 43.8% aged 50 to 64 y, and 71.8% who were overweight/obese.
Results
Analyses of covariance with post hoc comparisons showed that the risk ladder elicited higher gist comprehension than the bulleted list (P = 0.01). There were no significant main effects on verbatim comprehension or physical activity intentions and no moderation by sex, race/ethnicity, education, numeracy, or graph literacy (P > 0.05). Sequential mediation analyses revealed a small beneficial indirect effect of risk ladder versus list on intentions through gist comprehension and then through perceived risk (bIndirectEffect = 0.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.00, 0.04).
Conclusion
Risk ladders can communicate the gist meaning of multiple pieces of risk information to individuals from many sociodemographic backgrounds and with varying levels of facility with numbers and graphs.
FowlerSLKleinWMPBallLMcGuireJColditzGAWatersEA.Using an internet-based breast cancer risk assessment tool to improve social-cognitive precursors of physical activity. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(6):657–69.
2.
HovickSRBeversTBVidrineJI, et al. User perceptions and reactions to an online cancer risk assessment tool: a process evaluation of cancer risk check. J Cancer Educ. 2017;32(1):141–7.
3.
LosinaEMichlGLSmithKCKatzJN.Randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention using an online risk calculator for knee osteoarthritis: effect on risk perception. Arthritis Care Res. 2017;69(8):1164–70.
4.
WittemanHOFuhrel-ForbisAWijeysunderaHC, et al. Animated randomness, avatars, movement, and personalization in risk graphics. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):e80.
5.
FagerlinAZikmund-FisherBJNairV, et al. Women’s decisions regarding tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: responses to a tailored decision aid. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(3):613–20.
6.
WoloshinSSchwartzLM.Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):87–96.
7.
EdwardsAGNaikGAhmedH, et al. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD001865.
8.
Macdonald-RossM.How numbers are shown: a review of research on the presentation of quantitative data in texts. Audiovis Commun Rev. 1977;25:359–407.
9.
LipkusIMHollandsJG.The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;25(1):149–63.
10.
LipkusIM.Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.
11.
FagerlinAUbelPASmithDMZikmund-FisherBJ.Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31(suppl 1):S47–56.
12.
TrevenaLJZikmund-FisherBJEdwardsA, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(suppl 2):S7.
13.
Garcia-RetameroRCokelyET.Designing visual aids that promote risk literacy: a systematic review of health research and evidence-based design heuristics. Human Factors. 2017;59(4):582–627.
14.
AnckerJSSenathirajahYKukafkaRStarrenJ.Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–18.
15.
ReynaVF.A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:850–65.
16.
CardosoRLLeiteROde AquinoAC.A graph is worth a thousand words: how overconfidence and graphical disclosure of numerical information influence financial analysts accuracy on decision making. PloS One. 2016;11(8):e0160443.
17.
BrewerNTGilkeyMBLillieSEHesseBWSheridanSL.Tables or bar graphs? Presenting test results in electronic medical records. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(4):545–53.
18.
DowdingDMerrillJAOnoratoNBarronYRosatiRJRussellD.The impact of home care nurses’ numeracy and graph literacy on comprehension of visual display information: implications for dashboard design. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(2):175–82.
19.
SullivanHWO’DonoghueACAikinKJChowdhuryDMoultrieRRRupertDJ.Visual presentations of efficacy data in direct-to-consumer prescription drug print and television advertisements: a randomized study. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(5):790–9.
20.
GohSKCouryBG.Incorporating the effect of display formats in cognitive modelling. Ergonomics. 1994;37(4):725–45.
21.
HoltJBennettKBFlachJM.Emergent features and perceptual objects: re-examining fundamental principles in analogical display design. Ergonomics. 2015;58(12):1960–73.
22.
ClevelandWSMcGillR.Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79(387):531–54.
23.
Zikmund-FisherBJUbelPASmithDM, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(2):209–14.
24.
GalesicMGarcia-RetameroRGigerenzerG.Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009;28(2):210–6.
25.
Zikmund-FisherBJFagerlinARobertsTRDerryHAUbelPA.Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk of occurrence. J Health Commun. 2008;13:107–24.
26.
SandmanPMWeinsteinNDMillerP.High risk or low: how location on a “risk ladder” affects perceived risk. Risk Anal. 1993;14(1):35–45.
27.
KellerCSiegristMVisschersV.Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk Anal. 2009;29(9):1255–64.
28.
KellerC.Using a familiar risk comparison within a risk ladder to improve risk understanding by low numerates: a study of visual attention. Risk Anal. 2011;37(7):1043–54.
29.
TaitARVoepel-LewisTZikmund-FisherBJFagerlinA.The effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010;15(5):487–501.
30.
McDowellMGigerenzerGWegwarthORebitschekFG.Effect of tabular and icon fact box formats on comprehension of benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening: a randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(1):41–56.
31.
SchwartzLMWoloshinS.The Drug Facts Box: improving the communication of prescription drug information. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(suppl 3):14069–74.
32.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSWelchHG.The Drug Facts Box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:655–62.
33.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSWelchHG.Using a Drug Facts Box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(8):516–27.
34.
LiuYColditzGARosnerBADartHWeiEWatersEA.Comparison of performance between a short categorized lifestyle exposure-based colon cancer risk prediction tool and a model using continuous measures. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2018;11(12):841–8.
35.
JanssenERuiterRACWatersEA.Combining risk communication strategies to simultaneously convey the risks of four diseases associated with physical inactivity to socio-demographically diverse populations. J Behav Med. 2018;41(3):318–32.
36.
SchwarzerR.Social-cognitive factors in changing health-related behavior. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10(2):47–51.
37.
SlovicPPetersEFinucaneMLMacgregorDG.Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24(4 suppl):S35–40.
38.
PetersEVastfjallDGarlingTSlovicP.Affect and decision making: a “hot” topic. J Behav Decis Mak. 2006;19(2):79–85.
39.
EdwardsW.Behavioral decision theory. Annu Rev Psychol. 1961;12:473–98.
40.
RogersRW.Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: CacioppoJTPettyRE, eds. Social Psychophysiology: A Source Book. New York: Guilford Press; 1983. p 153–76.
41.
WeinsteinND.The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol. 1988;7(4):355–86.
42.
ProkhorovAVKhalilGECalabroKS, et al. Mobile phone text messaging for tobacco risk communication among young adult community college students: protocol and baseline overview for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018;7(10):e10977.
43.
GalesicMGarcia-RetameroR.Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):444–57.
44.
LipkusIMJohnsonCMAmarasekaraSPanWUpdegraffJA.Reactions to online colorectal cancer risk estimates among a nationally representative sample of adults who have never been screened. J Behav Med. 2018;41(3):289–98.
45.
KellerCSiegristM.Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(4):483–90.
46.
McGuireWJ.Public communication as a strategy for inducing health-promoting behavior change. Prev Med. 1984;13(3):299–313.
47.
SheeranPHarrisPREptonT.Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychol Bull. 2014;140(2):511–43.
48.
BrewerNTDeFrankJTGilkeyMB.Anticipated regret and health behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016;35(11):1264–75.
49.
KiviniemiMTVoss-HumkeAMSeifertAL.How do i feel about the behavior? The interplay of affective associations with behaviors and cognitive beliefs as influences on physical activity behavior. Health Psychol. 2007;26(2):152–8.
50.
AckermannNMakiJCameronLD, et al. “I plan so I can.” Combining self-regulation and mental imagery to increase exercise behavior over 90 days (working title). Manuscript in progress.
CambriaNFehlerPPurnellJSchmidtB.Segregation in St. Louis: Dismantling the Divide. St. Louis (MO): Washington University in St. Louis; 2018.
53.
US Department of Health and Human Services. 2008physical activity guidelines for Americans: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. Available from: https://health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf
54.
ColditzGAAtwoodKAEmmonsK, et al. Harvard report on cancer prevention volume 4: Harvard Cancer Risk Index. Risk Index Working Group, Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention. Cancer Causes Control. 2000;11(6):477–88.
55.
RosnerBAColditzGAHankinsonSESullivan-HalleyJLaceyJVJr.BernsteinL.Validation of Rosner-Colditz breast cancer incidence model using an independent data set, the California Teachers Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142(1):187–202.
56.
BaerHJSchneiderLIColditzGA, et al. Use of a web-based risk appraisal tool for assessing family history and lifestyle factors in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(6):817–24.
PetersEDieckmannNDixonAHibbardJHMertzCK.Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(2):169–90.
61.
Zikmund-FisherBJ.The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 suppl):37S–49S.
62.
BrewerNT.Goals. In: FischhoffBBrewerNTDownsJS, eds. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide. Silver Spring (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 2011. p 3–10.
63.
PetersEBjalkebringP.Multiple numeric competencies: when a number is not just a number. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;108(5):802–22.
64.
Zikmund-FisherBJAngottAMUbelPA.The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(1):79–87.
65.
ManiaciMRRoggeRD.Caring about carelessness: participant inattention and its effects on research. J Res Personality. 2014;48:61–83.
66.
ConnerMSparksP.The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviours. In: ConnerMNormanP, eds. Predicting Health Behaviour. Philadelphia: Open University Press; 1995. p 121–62.
67.
National Cancer Institute. Health Information National Trends Survey 2005 Questionnaire. Bethesda (M)D: National Cancer Institute; 2005. Available from: http://hints.cancer.gov/
68.
ScholzUSniehottaFFSchwarzerR.Predicting physical exercise in cardiac rehabilitation: the role of phase-specific self-efficacy beliefs. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2005;27:135–51.
69.
SchwarzerRFuchsR.Self-efficacy and health behaviours. In: ConnerMNormanP, eds. Predicting Health Behaviour. Philadelphia: Open University Press; 1995. p 169–96.
70.
WeinsteinNDKwitelAMcCaulKDMagnanREGerrardMGibbonsFX.Risk perceptions: assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26(2):146–51.
71.
KiviniemiMTJandorfLErwinDO.Disgusted, embarrassed, annoyed: affective associations relate to uptake of colonoscopy screening. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(1):112–9.
72.
MorrisNSMacLeanCDChewLDLittenbergB.The single item literacy screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:21.
73.
LipkusIMKleinWMRimerBK.Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10(8):895–8.
74.
OkanYJanssenEGalesicMWatersEA.Using the short graph literacy scale to predict precursors of health behavior change. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(3):183–95.
75.
HayesAF.Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford; 2017.
76.
PetrovaDGarcia-RetameroRCokelyET.Understanding the harms and benefits of cancer screening: a model of factors that shape informed decision making. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(7):847–58.
77.
MichieSAshfordSSniehottaFFDombrowskiSUBishopAFrenchDP.A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: the CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychol Health. 2011;26(11):1479–98.
78.
MarteauTMKinmonthALThompsonSPykeS.The psychological impact of cardiovascular screening and intervention in primary care: a problem of false reassurance? British Family Heart Study Group. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46(411):577–82.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
