Much effort has been put into improving measures of health care quality. Although early research suggested that consumers made little use of quality reports, most reports were based on nonstandardized measures and were not user friendly. Information presentation approaches, however, will have a significant influence on what information is attended and used. The present research examines whether information presentation methods differentially influence consumers who differ in numeric skills. Results of three studies support the idea that “less is more” when presenting consumers with comparative performance information to make hospital choices. Results were particularly strong for those lower in numeracy, who had higher comprehension and made better choices when the information-presentation format was designed to ease the cognitive burden and highlight the meaning of important information. These findings have important implications for the sponsors of comparative quality reports designed to inform consumer decision making in health care.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 2004. Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 Public Law 108-173 (CMS legislative summary). http://new.cms.hhs.gov/MMAUpdate/downloads/PL108-173summary.pdf (accessed March 26, 2006).
2.
———. 2006. Medicare—the official U.S. government site for people with Medicare. http://www.medicare.gov (accessed March 26, 2006).
Department of Health and Human Services. 2006 . Hospital compare—a quality tool for adults, including people with Medicare. http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov (accessed March 26, 2006).
5.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C. 1977. Rudiments of numeracy . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A— General) 140(3): 277-97 .
6.
Fagerlin, A., B.J. Zikmund-Fisher, P.A. Ubel, and D. Smith. 2003. “ Measuring numeracy when people hate math tests .” Paper presented at the Society for Medical Decision Making, Chicago, October.
7.
Fronstin, P., and S.R. Collins. 2005. Early experience with high-deductible and consumer-driven health plans: Findings from the EBRI/Commonwealth Fund Consumerism in Health Care Survey. New York: The Commonwealth Fund , December.
8.
Hibbard, J.H., J. Greene, and M. Tusler. 2006. An early assessment of beneficiary knowledge and awareness of the prescription drug benefit ( AARP, Public Policy Institute Report 2006-X). Washington, DC: AARP , http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/health/2006_12_medicare.pdf .
9.
Hibbard, J.H., and J.J. Jewett. 1996. What type of quality information do consumers want in a health care report card? Medical Care Research Review53: 28-47 .
10.
Hibbard, J.H., and L.G. Pawlson. 2004. Why not give consumers a framework for understanding quality? Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety30(6): 347-51 .
11.
Hibbard J.H., and E.M. Peters. 2003. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: Data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annual Review of Public Health24: 413-33 .
12.
Hibbard, J.H., E.M. Peters, P. Slovic, and M.L. Finucane. 2001. Making health care report cards easier to use. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement27(11): 591-604 .
13.
Hibbard J.H., P. Slovic, E.M. Peters, and M. Finucane. 2002. Strategies for reporting health plan performance information to consumers: Evidence from controlled studies . Health Services Research37(2): 291-313 .
14.
Hibbard, J.H., S. Sofaer, and J. Jewett. 1996. Condition-specific performance information: Assessing salience, comprehension, and approaches for communicating quality . Health Care Financing Review18(1): 95-109 .
15.
Hibbard, J.H., J. Stockard, and M. Tusler. 2003. Does making hospital performance public increase quality improvement efforts? Health Affairs22(2): 84-94 .
16.
Kirsch, I.S., A. Jungeblut, L. Jenkins, and A. Kolstad. 2002. Adult literacy in America: A first look at the findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey, 3rd ed., vol. 201. Washington, DC: National Center for Education, U.S. Department of Education .
17.
Lichtenstein, S., and P. Slovic, eds. 2006. The construction of preference . New York: Cambridge University Press .
18.
Lipkus, I.M., G. Samsa, and B.K. Rimer. 2001. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples . Medical Decision Making21: 37-44 .
19.
Marshall, M.N., P.G. Shekelle, S. Leatherman, and R.H. Brook. 2000. What do we expect to gain from the public release of performance data? A review of the evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association283: 1866-74 .
20.
Pear, R. 2006. “ A.M.A. to develop measure of quality of medical care .” The New York Times, sec. A12, February 21.
21.
Peters, E., D. Västfjäll, P. Slovic, C.K. Mertz, K. Mazzocco, and S. Dickert. (2006). Numeracy and decision making . Psychological Science, 17(5): 408-14 .
22.
Sainfort, F., and B.C. Booske. 1996. Consumer selection of health plans, role of information . Health Care Financing Review18(1): 31-54 .
23.
Slovic, P. 1995. The construction of preference. 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award Address (1994, Los Angeles, California) . American Psychologist50(5): 364-71 .
24.
Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods, 6th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press . The White House. 2006. State of the union address by the President. http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006 (accessed March 26, 2006).
25.
Vha Inc. 2000. Consumer demand for clinical quality: The giant awakens . Irving, TX: Author .
