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

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10143/36952
Title:
Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial.
Authors:
Akl, Elie A; Maroun, Nancy; Guyatt, Gordon; Oxman, Andrew David; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Vist, Gunn Elisabeth; Devereaux, P J; Montori, Victor M; Schünemann, Holger J
Citation:
Journal of clinical epidemiology 2007, 60 (12):1298-305

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorAkl, Elie A-
dc.contributor.authorMaroun, Nancy-
dc.contributor.authorGuyatt, Gordon-
dc.contributor.authorOxman, Andrew David-
dc.contributor.authorAlonso-Coello, Pablo-
dc.contributor.authorVist, Gunn Elisabeth-
dc.contributor.authorDevereaux, P J-
dc.contributor.authorMontori, Victor M-
dc.contributor.authorSchünemann, Holger J-
dc.date.accessioned2008-08-31T19:42:12Z-
dc.date.available2008-08-31T19:42:12Z-
dc.date.issued2007-12-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of clinical epidemiology 2007, 60 (12):1298-305en
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356-
dc.identifier.pmid17998085-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.011-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10143/36952-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: 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.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.meshAdulten
dc.subject.meshAgeden
dc.subject.meshCommunicationen
dc.subject.meshCommunity Health Servicesen
dc.subject.meshComprehensionen
dc.subject.meshConsumer Satisfactionen
dc.subject.meshEvidence-Based Medicineen
dc.subject.meshHealth Educationen
dc.subject.meshHumansen
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden
dc.subject.meshProgram Evaluationen
dc.subject.meshQuestionnairesen
dc.subject.meshMaleen
dc.subject.meshFemaleen
dc.titleSymbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial.en
dc.title.alternativeComparison of two presentations of the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence: Healthcare consumers’ understanding, evaluations and preferences (authors' title on manus.)en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typepeer revieweden
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medicine, University at Buffalo, NY, USA.en
dc.identifier.journalJournal of clinical epidemiologyen
All Items in HeRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.