Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial

被引:42
作者
Akl, Elie A.
Maroun, Nancy
Guyatt, Gordon
Oxman, Andrew D.
Alonso-Coello, Pablo
Vist, Gunn E.
Devereaux, P. J.
Montori, Victor M.
Schunemann, Holger J.
机构
[1] Italian Natl Canc Inst Regina Elena, Dept Epidemiol, I-00144 Rome, Italy
[2] SUNY Buffalo, Dept Med, Buffalo, NY 14260 USA
[3] SUNY Buffalo, Dept Sociol, Buffalo, NY 14260 USA
[4] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[5] Norwegian Knowledge Ctr Hlth Serv, Oslo, Norway
[6] Hosp Sant Pau, Iberoamerican Cochrane Ctr, Barcelona, Spain
[7] Mayo Clin, Coll Med, Knowledge & Encounter Res Unit, Rochester, MN USA
[8] Italian Natl Canc Inst Regina Elena, Dept Epidemiol, I-00144 Rome, Italy
关键词
guidelines; consumer participation; randomized controlled trial; symbols; numbers; letters;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.011
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To compare health care consumers' understanding, evaluations, and preferences for symbols vs. numbers and letters for the representation of strength of recommendations (SOR) and quality of evidence (QOE). Study Design and Setting: Questionnaire study in a randomized controlled design in the setting of a community health education program. Results: Eighty-four participants completed the questionnaire. For the presentation of the SOR, participants had better objective understanding of symbols than numbers (74% vs. 14%, P < 0.001). They also scored symbols positively, and numbers negatively for ease of understanding (mean difference [md] = 1.5, P = 0.001), clearness and conciseness (md = 1.5, P < 0.001), and conveyance of the degree of uncertainty (md = 0.7, P = 0.092). About half (48%) preferred symbols over numbers. For the presentation of the QOE, objective understanding of symbols and letters was similar (91% vs. 95%, P = 0.509). Participants scored both symbols and letters positively; the scores for symbols were however lower for ease of understanding (md = -0.7, P = 0.019), clearness and conciseness (md = -0.6, P = 0.051), and conveyance of the QOE (md = -0.4, P = 0.24). Conclusion: Symbols were superior to numbers for the presentation of the SOR. Objective understanding was high for both symbols and letters for the presentation of the QOE, but letters conveyed the QOE better than symbols. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1298 / 1305
页数:8
相关论文
共 7 条
[1]   Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations -: I:: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group -: art. no. 38 [J].
Atkins, D ;
Eccles, M ;
Flottorp, S ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Henry, D ;
Hill, S ;
Liberati, A ;
O'Connell, D ;
Oxman, AD ;
Phillips, B ;
Schünemann, H ;
Edejer, TTT ;
Vist, GE ;
Williams, JW .
BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2004, 4 (1)
[2]  
Atkins D, 2004, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V328, P1490
[3]   Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II:: Pilot study of a new system -: art. no. 25 [J].
Atkins, D ;
Briss, PA ;
Eccles, M ;
Flottorp, S ;
Guyatt, GH ;
Harbour, RT ;
Hill, S ;
Jaeschke, R ;
Liberati, A ;
Magrini, N ;
Mason, J ;
O'Connell, D ;
Oxman, AD ;
Phillips, B ;
Schünemann, H ;
Edejer, TTT ;
Vist, GE ;
Williams, JW .
BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2005, 5 (1)
[4]  
Guyatt Gordon, 2006, ACP J Club, V144, pA8
[5]  
Schünemann HJ, 2003, CAN MED ASSOC J, V169, P677
[6]   GRAPHICAL DATA-ANALYSIS [J].
WAINER, H ;
THISSEN, D .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1981, 32 :191-241
[7]  
1979, CAN MED ASSOC J, V121, P1193