Sprague Debra, Russo Joan E, Lavallie Donna L, Buchwald Dedra S
Partnerships for Native Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
J Cancer Educ. 2012 Dec;27(4):752-8. doi: 10.1007/s13187-012-0372-x.
We evaluated methods for presenting risk information by administering six versions of an anonymous survey to 489 American Indian tribal college students. All surveys presented identical numeric information, but framing varied. Half expressed prevention benefits as relative risk reduction, half as absolute risk reduction. One third of surveys used text to describe prevention benefits; one third used text plus bar graph; one third used text plus modified bar graph incorporating a culturally tailored image. The odds ratio (OR) for correct risk interpretation for absolute risk framing vs. relative risk framing was 1.40 (95 % CI = 1.01, 1.93). The OR for correct interpretation of text plus bar graph vs. text only was 2.16 (95 % CI = 1.46, 3.19); OR for text plus culturally tailored bar graph vs. text only was 1.72 (95 % CI = 1.14, 2.60). Risk information including a bar graph was better understood than text-only information; a culturally tailored graph was no more effective than a standard graph.
我们通过向489名美国印第安部落大学生进行六个版本的匿名调查,评估了呈现风险信息的方法。所有调查都呈现了相同的数字信息,但框架有所不同。一半将预防益处表述为相对风险降低,另一半表述为绝对风险降低。三分之一的调查使用文字描述预防益处;三分之一使用文字加条形图;三分之一使用文字加结合了文化定制图像的改良条形图。绝对风险框架与相对风险框架的正确风险解读的优势比(OR)为1.40(95%置信区间=1.01,1.93)。文字加条形图与仅文字的正确解读的OR为2.16(95%置信区间=1.46,3.19);文字加文化定制条形图与仅文字的OR为1.72(95%置信区间=1.14,2.60)。包含条形图的风险信息比仅文字信息更容易理解;文化定制的图表并不比标准图表更有效。