How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review

Background. The Making Numbers Meaningful review is intended to create guidance on the effect of data presentation format on comprehension of numbers in health. Purpose. This article (one of a series) covers research studying so-called “point tasks,” in which a reader examines materials to obtain in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jessica S. Ancker, Natalie C. Benda, Mohit M. Sharma, Stephen B. Johnson, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2025-02-01
Series:MDM Policy & Practice
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241255337
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849723698281447424
author Jessica S. Ancker
Natalie C. Benda
Mohit M. Sharma
Stephen B. Johnson
Michelle Demetres
Diana Delgado
Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
author_facet Jessica S. Ancker
Natalie C. Benda
Mohit M. Sharma
Stephen B. Johnson
Michelle Demetres
Diana Delgado
Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
author_sort Jessica S. Ancker
collection DOAJ
description Background. The Making Numbers Meaningful review is intended to create guidance on the effect of data presentation format on comprehension of numbers in health. Purpose. This article (one of a series) covers research studying so-called “point tasks,” in which a reader examines materials to obtain information about single probabilities. The current article presents evidence on the effects of data presentation format on probability perceptions and feelings, health behaviors and behavioral intentions, trust, preference, and discrimination outcomes. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. Study Selection. Manual pairwise screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or other lay audiences. This article reports 466 findings of probability communication from 161 articles. Data Extraction. Pairwise extraction of information on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), task, and outcomes. Data Synthesis. Moderate to strong evidence is available on the effects of several format interventions to influence probability perceptions and feelings, including the 1-in-X number format, foreground-only (numerator-only) icon arrays, bar charts, anecdotes, framing, and verbal probabilities. However, only 3 (the 1-in-X effect, anecdotes, and framing) had moderate to strong evidence of influencing health behaviors and behavioral intentions. Research on patient preferences for numerical, graphical, and verbal formats yielded only weak evidence. Conclusions. The link between probability perceptions/feelings and health behaviors is not strongly reflected in the evidence about communicating numbers because many communication-focused studies measure short-term response rather than longer-term behaviors. Also, research into patient preferences for numerical, graphical, and verbal formats has not yielded strong evidence suggesting stable and predictable preferences. Highlights Formatting a probability as 1 in X, using a foreground-only icon array, adding anecdotes to numbers, and gain-loss framing all affect probability perceptions and feelings. The evidence on communicating numbers to influence perceptions is far stronger than the evidence on using it to change health behavior or behavioral intention. Only weak evidence is available on patient preferences for verbal, graphical, and numerical probability formats.
format Article
id doaj-art-226d738039b94859b2d516d37df0eae0
institution DOAJ
issn 2381-4683
language English
publishDate 2025-02-01
publisher SAGE Publishing
record_format Article
series MDM Policy & Practice
spelling doaj-art-226d738039b94859b2d516d37df0eae02025-08-20T03:10:57ZengSAGE PublishingMDM Policy & Practice2381-46832025-02-011010.1177/23814683241255337How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic ReviewJessica S. AnckerNatalie C. BendaMohit M. SharmaStephen B. JohnsonMichelle DemetresDiana DelgadoBrian J. Zikmund-FisherBackground. The Making Numbers Meaningful review is intended to create guidance on the effect of data presentation format on comprehension of numbers in health. Purpose. This article (one of a series) covers research studying so-called “point tasks,” in which a reader examines materials to obtain information about single probabilities. The current article presents evidence on the effects of data presentation format on probability perceptions and feelings, health behaviors and behavioral intentions, trust, preference, and discrimination outcomes. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, ERIC, ACM Digital Library; hand search of 4 journals. Study Selection. Manual pairwise screening to identify experimental and quasi-experimental research that compared 2 or more formats for presenting quantitative health information to patients or other lay audiences. This article reports 466 findings of probability communication from 161 articles. Data Extraction. Pairwise extraction of information on stimulus (data in a data presentation format), task, and outcomes. Data Synthesis. Moderate to strong evidence is available on the effects of several format interventions to influence probability perceptions and feelings, including the 1-in-X number format, foreground-only (numerator-only) icon arrays, bar charts, anecdotes, framing, and verbal probabilities. However, only 3 (the 1-in-X effect, anecdotes, and framing) had moderate to strong evidence of influencing health behaviors and behavioral intentions. Research on patient preferences for numerical, graphical, and verbal formats yielded only weak evidence. Conclusions. The link between probability perceptions/feelings and health behaviors is not strongly reflected in the evidence about communicating numbers because many communication-focused studies measure short-term response rather than longer-term behaviors. Also, research into patient preferences for numerical, graphical, and verbal formats has not yielded strong evidence suggesting stable and predictable preferences. Highlights Formatting a probability as 1 in X, using a foreground-only icon array, adding anecdotes to numbers, and gain-loss framing all affect probability perceptions and feelings. The evidence on communicating numbers to influence perceptions is far stronger than the evidence on using it to change health behavior or behavioral intention. Only weak evidence is available on patient preferences for verbal, graphical, and numerical probability formats.https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241255337
spellingShingle Jessica S. Ancker
Natalie C. Benda
Mohit M. Sharma
Stephen B. Johnson
Michelle Demetres
Diana Delgado
Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review
MDM Policy & Practice
title How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review
title_full How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review
title_fullStr How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review
title_short How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review
title_sort how point single probability tasks are affected by probability format part 2 a making numbers meaningful systematic review
url https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241255337
work_keys_str_mv AT jessicasancker howpointsingleprobabilitytasksareaffectedbyprobabilityformatpart2amakingnumbersmeaningfulsystematicreview
AT nataliecbenda howpointsingleprobabilitytasksareaffectedbyprobabilityformatpart2amakingnumbersmeaningfulsystematicreview
AT mohitmsharma howpointsingleprobabilitytasksareaffectedbyprobabilityformatpart2amakingnumbersmeaningfulsystematicreview
AT stephenbjohnson howpointsingleprobabilitytasksareaffectedbyprobabilityformatpart2amakingnumbersmeaningfulsystematicreview
AT michelledemetres howpointsingleprobabilitytasksareaffectedbyprobabilityformatpart2amakingnumbersmeaningfulsystematicreview
AT dianadelgado howpointsingleprobabilitytasksareaffectedbyprobabilityformatpart2amakingnumbersmeaningfulsystematicreview
AT brianjzikmundfisher howpointsingleprobabilitytasksareaffectedbyprobabilityformatpart2amakingnumbersmeaningfulsystematicreview