Public engagement with scientific evidence in health: A qualitative study among primary-care patients in an urban population

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the experience and perspective of patients regarding scientific evidence in health and the degree that this information impacts health behavior and medical decision making. A focus group study was conducted. Participants were recruited from an urban primary-care practice. The focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two independent investigators. Emergent themes were identified. Participants (n = 30) ranged in age from 30 to 79 years, 60% were female, 77% were black, and 50% had at least some college experience. Three thematic areas informed a wide range in level of interest regarding scientific study design and result information: (1) scientific literacy, (2) medical decision making style, and (3) impact of culture and community on decision making. Our findings indicate that communication strategies that incorporate key elements of scientific study design, methods, and results will most effectively translate findings from comparative effectiveness research to patient-informed decision making regarding evidence-based health interventions.

Keywords

decision making in science health communication patients public understanding of science

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blackstone

(2012) Will comparative effectiveness research finally succeed? Biotechnology Healthcare 9(3): 22–26.

Cacioppo

Petty

Kao

(1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48(3): 306–307.

Callingham

Watson

(2005) Measuring statistical literacy. Journal of Applied Measurement 6(1): 19–47.

Carman

Maurer

Yegian

Dardess

McGee

Evers

. (2010) Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care. Health Affairs 29(7): 1400–1406.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008) Basics of Qualitative Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Edwards

Naik

Ahmed

Elwyn

Pickles

Hood

. (2013) Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2: CD001865.

Epstein

Pacini

Denes-Raj

Heier

(1996) Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(2): 390–405.

Evans

McCormack

(2008) Applying social marketing in health care: Communicating evidence to change consumer behavior. Medical Decision Making 28(5): 781–792.

Gal

(2002) Adults’ statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. International Statistical Review 70(1): 1–25.

10.

Gerber

Patashnik

Doherty

Dowling

(2010) A national survey reveals public skepticism about research-based treatment guidelines. Health Affairs 29(10): 1882–1884.

11.

Glenton

Nilsen

Carlsen

(2006) Lay perceptions of evidence-based information—A qualitative evaluation of a website for back pain sufferers. BMC Health Services Research 6: 34.

12.

Helfand

Balshem

(2010) AHRQ series paper 2: Principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63(5): 484–490.

13.

Hibbard

Peters

(2003) Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: Data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annual Review of Public Health 24: 413–433.

14.

Hoffrage

Lindsey

Hertwig

Gigerenzer

(2000) Medicine—Communicating statistical information. Science 290(5500): 2261–2262.

15.

Inbar

Cone

Gilovich

(2010) People’s intuitions about intuitive insight and intuitive choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(2): 232–247.

16.

Kahn

(2002) Building public trust in research. Journal of Andrology 23(5): 610.

17.

Lipkus

(2007) Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making 27(5): 696–713.

18.

Lipkus

Samsa

Rimer

(2001) General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making 21(1): 37–44.

19.

Miller

(1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7(3): 203–223.

20.

Miller

(2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science 13(3): 273–294.

21.

National Science Foundation (2014) www.nsf.gov

22.

Peters

Hart

Fraenkel

(2011) Informing patients: The influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Medical Decision Making 31(3): 432–436.

23.

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2014) http://www.people-press.org/

24.

Pretz

(2008) Intuition versus analysis: Strategy and experience in complex everyday problem solving. Memory & Cognition 36(3): 554–566.

25.

QSR International Pty Ltd (2012) NVivo qualitative data analysis software.

26.

Reyna

Nelson

Han

Dieckmann

(2009) How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin 135(6): 943–973.

27.

Sandy

Tuckson

Stevens

(2013) UnitedHealthcare experience illustrates how payers can enable patient engagement. Health Affairs 32(8): 1440–1445.

28.

Schapira

Fletcher

Ganschow

Walker

Tyler

Del Pozo

. (2011) The meaning of numbers in health: Exploring health numeracy in a Mexican-American population. Journal of General Internal Medicine 26(7): 705–711.

29.

Schapira

Fletcher

Gilligan

King

Laud

Matthews

. (2008) A framework for health numeracy: How patients use quantitative skills in health care. Journal of Health Communication 13(5): 501–517.

30.

Schapira

Walker

Cappaert

Ganschow

Fletcher

McGinley

. (2012) The numeracy understanding in medicine instrument: A measure of health numeracy developed using item response theory. Medical Decision Making 32(6): 851–865.

31.

Schwartz

Woloshin

Welch

(2005) Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Medical Decision Making 25(3): 290–300.

32.

Schwartz

Woloshin

Black

Welch

(1997) The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine 127(11): 966–972.

33.

Senay

Kaphingst

(2009) Anchoring-and-adjustment bias in communication of disease risk. Medical Decision Making 29(2): 193–201.

34.

Sheridan

Pignone

(2002) Numeracy and the medical student’s ability to interpret data. Effective Clinical Practice 5(1): 35–40.

35.

Smith

Appleton

MacDonald

(2013) Building confidence in vaccines. Advances in Experimental Medicine & Biology 764: 81–98.

36.

Smith

Wolf

von Wagner

(2010) Socioeconomic status, statistical confidence, and patient-provider communication: An analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 2007). Journal of Health Communication 15(Suppl. 3): 169–185.

37.

Sox

Greenfield

(2009) Comparative effectiveness research: A report from the Institute of Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine 151(3): 203–205.

38.

Sullivan

Carlson

Hansen

(2013) Comparative effectiveness research in the United States: A progress report. Journal of Medical Economics 16(2): 295–297.

39.

Visschers

Meertens

Passchier

de Vries

(2009) Probability information in risk communication: A review of the research literature. Risk Analysis 29(2): 267–287.

40.

Vogt

Ashworth

Hall

Sniehotta

Marteau

(2010) What underlies the perception that a medical intervention is effective? An exploratory study among smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 12(5): 508–515.

41.

Wallman

(1993) Enhancing statistical literacy—Enriching our society. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88(421): 1–8.

42.

Washington

Lipstein

(2011) The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute—Promoting better information, decisions, and health. New England Journal of Medicine 365(15): e31.