RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Prescription Drug Promotion, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
J Commun Healthc. 2023 Oct;16(3):260-267. doi: 10.1080/17538068.2022.2150236. Epub 2022 Dec 5.
Healthcare providers often encounter clinical trial results in the form of visual data displays. Although there is a robust literature on patient responses to data displays in medical settings, less is known about how providers comprehend and apply this information. Our study provides a scoping review of the literature on providers' reactions to and perceptions of data displays.
We searched article databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library) supplemented by handsearching. Eligible articles were published in English from 1990 to 2020.
We identified 15 articles meeting our criteria. Studies with physicians were more prevalent (13/15) than those with other healthcare providers (6/15). Commonly assessed outcomes included objective (10/15) and subjective comprehension (4/15), preference for certain data display formats (6/15), and hypothetical decision-making around prescribing (4/15). In studies that assessed comprehension of clinical trial concepts, scores were average or below what would be considered mastery of the information. Data display formats that were preferred did not always correlate with better comprehension of information; lesser preferred formats (e.g. icon array) often resulted in better comprehension.
Our findings suggest that healthcare providers may not accurately interpret complex types of data displays, and it is unknown if such limitations affect actual decision-making. Interventions are needed to enhance comprehension of complex data displays within the context of prescription drug professional promotion.
医疗保健提供者在临床实践中经常会遇到以视觉数据呈现的试验结果。尽管已有大量文献研究了患者对医疗环境中数据呈现的反应,但对于提供者如何理解和应用这些信息的研究却相对较少。我们的研究对关于提供者对数据呈现的反应和感知的文献进行了范围综述。
我们检索了文献数据库(PubMed、PsycINFO、Web of Science、Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature、Cochrane Library),并进行了手工检索。符合条件的文章必须发表于 1990 年至 2020 年期间,且以英文撰写。
我们确定了符合标准的 15 篇文章。以医生为研究对象的研究(13/15)多于其他医疗保健提供者(6/15)。常见的评估结果包括客观(10/15)和主观理解(4/15)、对某些数据显示格式的偏好(6/15)以及围绕处方制定的假设性决策(4/15)。在评估临床试验概念理解的研究中,评分平均或低于被认为是对信息掌握的水平。偏好的数据显示格式并不总是与更好地理解信息相关联;不太受欢迎的格式(例如图标数组)往往会导致更好的理解。
我们的研究结果表明,医疗保健提供者可能无法准确解读复杂类型的数据呈现,并且尚不清楚这种局限性是否会影响实际决策。需要采取干预措施,以提高在处方药专业推广背景下对复杂数据呈现的理解。