Влияние использования пиктографических массивов и аналогий на рисковую коммуникацию среди детей-подростков
Научная статья
Выражение признательности
настоящее исследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке Российского научного фонда, номер проекта 22-28-00968 «Окулография в мультимодальном измерении когнитивной нагрузки респондента»
Аннотация
Цель исследования – измерить влияние использования подростками в возрасте 11–15 лет пиктографических массивов и аналогий в сообщениях на понимание информации о риске. Была проведена проверка, приводит ли использование пиктографических массивов к более высокой точности по сравнению с применением традиционного числового представления в задачах разной сложности: в простых задачах расчета риска и в сложных, таких как поиск оптимального решения и байесовских вычислений. Также была предпринята попытка оценить, улучшает ли использование аналогий понимание риска. Использование пиктографических массивов привело к лучшему пониманию информации о рисках и более точному сравнению рисков. Эффекты варьировались в зависимости от сложности задачи и грамотности участников в вопросах риска. Аналогии оказались более полезны для подростков с высоким уровнем грамотности.
Ключевые слова:
рисковая коммуникация, графический формат, рисковая грамотность, пиктографический массив
Литература
Brase G.L. Pictorial representations in statistical reasoning // Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2009. Vol. 23. P. 369–381. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1460.
Cleary P.D., Angel R. The analysis of relationships involving dichotomous dependent-variables // Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1984. Vol. 25. P. 334–348. DOI: 10.2307/2136429.
Cosmides L., Tooby J. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty // Cognition. 1996. Vol. 58. P. 1-73. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8.
Edwards A., Thomas R. Williams R., Ellner A.L., Brown P., Elwyn G. Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomized controlled trial // Patient Education and Counseling. 2006. Vol. 63 P. 336–349. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.12.016
Elting L.S., Martin C.G., Cantor S.B., Rubenstein E.B. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators’ decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures // British Medical Journal. 1999. Vol. 318. P. 1527–1531. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1527.
Fagerlin A., Wang C., Ubel P. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? // Medical Decision Making. 2005. Vol. 25. P. 398–405. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05278931.
Feldman-Stewart D., Brundage M. D., Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: Judgments of gist in treatment decisions // Medical Decision Making. 2007. Vol. 27. P. 34–43. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06297101.
Feldman-Stewart D., Kocovski N., McConnell B.A., Brundage M.D., Mackillop W.J. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions // Medical Decision Making. 2000. Vol. 20. P. 228–38. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000208.
Galesic M., Garcia-Retamero R. Using analogies to communicate information about medical treatments and screenings // Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2013. Vol. 27. P. 33–42. DOI: 10.1002/acp.2866.
Galesic M., Garcia-Retamero R. Graph literacy: A cross-cultural comparison // Medical Decision Making. 2011. Vol. 31. P. 444–457. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10373805.
Galesic M., Garcia-Retamero R., Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy // Health Psychology. 2009. Vol. 28. P. 210–216. DOI: 10.1037/a0014474.
Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M., Gigerenzer G. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? // Medical Decision Making. 2010. Vol. 30. P. 672–684. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X1036900.
Gigerenzer G. How to make cognitive illusions disappear: beyond heuristics and biases // European Review of Social Psychology. 1991. Vol. 2. P. 83–115.
Gigerenzer G., Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats // Psychological Review. 1995. Vol. 102. P. 684–704. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684. EDN: HKBWYP.
Hawley S.T., Zikmund-Fisher B., Ubel P., Jancovic A., Lucas T., Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices // Patient Education and Counseling. 2008. Vol. 73. P. 448–455. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023.
Keller C., Siegrist M. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy // Medical Decision Making. 2009. Vol. 29. P. 483–490. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09333122. EDN: NTHOTH.
Lipkus I.M., Hollands J.G. The visual communication of risk // Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 1999. Vol. 25. P. 149–163. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024191. EDN: ISSGBX.
Lipkus I.M., Samsa G., Rimer B.K. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples // Medical Decision Making. 2001. Vol. 21. P. 37–44. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100105.
Lunney G.H. Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent variable: empirical study // Journal of Educational Measurement. 1971. Vol. 7. P. 263–269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1970.tb00727.x.
McCaffery K.J., Dixon A., Hayen A., Jansen J., Smith S., Simpson J.M. The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: A randomized experimental study // Medical Decision Making. 2012. Vol. 32. P. 532-44. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11424926.
Multmeier J. Representations facilitate bayesian reasoning – computational facilitation and ecological design revisited. Free University, Berlin, 2012. URL: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/7708
Oudhoff J.P., Timmermans D.R.M. The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice // Medical Decision Making. 2015. Vol. 35. P. 487-500. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15576487.
Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks // British Medical Journal. 2003. Vol. 327. P. 745–748. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.745.
Price M., Cameron R., Butow P. Communicating risk information: The influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception—accuracy, comprehension and preferences // Patient Education and Counseling. 2007. Vol. 69. P. 121–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.006.
Schapira M.M., Nattinger A.B., McAuliffe T.L. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication // Journal of Health Communication. 2006. Vol. 11. P. 569–582. DOI: 10.1080/10810730600829916.
Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Black W.C., Welch H.G. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography // Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997. Vol. 127. P. 966–972. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003.
Sloman S.A., Over D., Slovak L., Stibel J.M. Frequency illusions and other fallacies // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2003. Vol. 91. P. 296–309. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00021-9. EDN: EAFEPT.
Timmermans D.R.M., Molewijk B., Stiggelbout A., Kievit J. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment // Patient Education and Counseling. 2004. Vol. 54. P. 255–263. DOI: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00238-6.
Ulph F., Townsend E., Glazebrook C. How should risk be communicated to children: a cross-sectional study comparing different formats of probability information // BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009. P. 9–26. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-9-26. EDN: TGMVKP.
Waters E.A., Weinstein N.D., Colditz G.A., Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions // Journal of Health Communication. 2006. Vol. 11. P. 167–182. DOI: 10.1080/10810730500526695.
Yamagishi K. Facilitating normative judgments of conditional probability: Frequency or nested sets? // Experimental Psychology. 2003. Vol. 50. P. 97–106. DOI: 10.1026/1618-3169.50.2.97.
Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A., Smith D.M., Derry H. A., McClure J.B., Stark A., Pitsch R.K., Fagerlin A. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: The debiasing influence of pictographs // Patient Education and Counseling. 2008. Vol. 73. P. 209–214. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.010.
Cleary P.D., Angel R. The analysis of relationships involving dichotomous dependent-variables // Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1984. Vol. 25. P. 334–348. DOI: 10.2307/2136429.
Cosmides L., Tooby J. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty // Cognition. 1996. Vol. 58. P. 1-73. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8.
Edwards A., Thomas R. Williams R., Ellner A.L., Brown P., Elwyn G. Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomized controlled trial // Patient Education and Counseling. 2006. Vol. 63 P. 336–349. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.12.016
Elting L.S., Martin C.G., Cantor S.B., Rubenstein E.B. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators’ decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures // British Medical Journal. 1999. Vol. 318. P. 1527–1531. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1527.
Fagerlin A., Wang C., Ubel P. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? // Medical Decision Making. 2005. Vol. 25. P. 398–405. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05278931.
Feldman-Stewart D., Brundage M. D., Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: Judgments of gist in treatment decisions // Medical Decision Making. 2007. Vol. 27. P. 34–43. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06297101.
Feldman-Stewart D., Kocovski N., McConnell B.A., Brundage M.D., Mackillop W.J. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions // Medical Decision Making. 2000. Vol. 20. P. 228–38. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000208.
Galesic M., Garcia-Retamero R. Using analogies to communicate information about medical treatments and screenings // Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2013. Vol. 27. P. 33–42. DOI: 10.1002/acp.2866.
Galesic M., Garcia-Retamero R. Graph literacy: A cross-cultural comparison // Medical Decision Making. 2011. Vol. 31. P. 444–457. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10373805.
Galesic M., Garcia-Retamero R., Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy // Health Psychology. 2009. Vol. 28. P. 210–216. DOI: 10.1037/a0014474.
Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M., Gigerenzer G. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? // Medical Decision Making. 2010. Vol. 30. P. 672–684. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X1036900.
Gigerenzer G. How to make cognitive illusions disappear: beyond heuristics and biases // European Review of Social Psychology. 1991. Vol. 2. P. 83–115.
Gigerenzer G., Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats // Psychological Review. 1995. Vol. 102. P. 684–704. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684. EDN: HKBWYP.
Hawley S.T., Zikmund-Fisher B., Ubel P., Jancovic A., Lucas T., Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices // Patient Education and Counseling. 2008. Vol. 73. P. 448–455. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023.
Keller C., Siegrist M. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy // Medical Decision Making. 2009. Vol. 29. P. 483–490. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09333122. EDN: NTHOTH.
Lipkus I.M., Hollands J.G. The visual communication of risk // Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 1999. Vol. 25. P. 149–163. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024191. EDN: ISSGBX.
Lipkus I.M., Samsa G., Rimer B.K. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples // Medical Decision Making. 2001. Vol. 21. P. 37–44. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100105.
Lunney G.H. Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent variable: empirical study // Journal of Educational Measurement. 1971. Vol. 7. P. 263–269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1970.tb00727.x.
McCaffery K.J., Dixon A., Hayen A., Jansen J., Smith S., Simpson J.M. The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: A randomized experimental study // Medical Decision Making. 2012. Vol. 32. P. 532-44. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11424926.
Multmeier J. Representations facilitate bayesian reasoning – computational facilitation and ecological design revisited. Free University, Berlin, 2012. URL: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/7708
Oudhoff J.P., Timmermans D.R.M. The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice // Medical Decision Making. 2015. Vol. 35. P. 487-500. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15576487.
Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks // British Medical Journal. 2003. Vol. 327. P. 745–748. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.745.
Price M., Cameron R., Butow P. Communicating risk information: The influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception—accuracy, comprehension and preferences // Patient Education and Counseling. 2007. Vol. 69. P. 121–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.006.
Schapira M.M., Nattinger A.B., McAuliffe T.L. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication // Journal of Health Communication. 2006. Vol. 11. P. 569–582. DOI: 10.1080/10810730600829916.
Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Black W.C., Welch H.G. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography // Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997. Vol. 127. P. 966–972. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003.
Sloman S.A., Over D., Slovak L., Stibel J.M. Frequency illusions and other fallacies // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2003. Vol. 91. P. 296–309. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00021-9. EDN: EAFEPT.
Timmermans D.R.M., Molewijk B., Stiggelbout A., Kievit J. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment // Patient Education and Counseling. 2004. Vol. 54. P. 255–263. DOI: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00238-6.
Ulph F., Townsend E., Glazebrook C. How should risk be communicated to children: a cross-sectional study comparing different formats of probability information // BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009. P. 9–26. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-9-26. EDN: TGMVKP.
Waters E.A., Weinstein N.D., Colditz G.A., Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions // Journal of Health Communication. 2006. Vol. 11. P. 167–182. DOI: 10.1080/10810730500526695.
Yamagishi K. Facilitating normative judgments of conditional probability: Frequency or nested sets? // Experimental Psychology. 2003. Vol. 50. P. 97–106. DOI: 10.1026/1618-3169.50.2.97.
Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A., Smith D.M., Derry H. A., McClure J.B., Stark A., Pitsch R.K., Fagerlin A. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: The debiasing influence of pictographs // Patient Education and Counseling. 2008. Vol. 73. P. 209–214. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.010.
Статья
Поступила: 27.11.2024
Выпуск
Раздел
МЕТОДИЧЕСКИЕ ЭКСПЕРИМЕНТЫ
