Visualizing risks in cancer communication: A systematic review of computer-supported visual aids

Jan Stellamanns, Dana Ruetters, Keshav Dahal, Zita Schillmoeller, Jutta Huebner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective: Health websites are becoming important sources for cancer information. Lay users, patients and carers seek support for critical decisions, but they are prone to common biases when quantitative information is presented. Graphical representations of risk data can facilitate comprehension, and interactive visualizations are popular. This review summarizes the evidence on computer-supported graphs that present risk data and their effects on various measures.

Methods: The systematic literature search was conducted in several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Only studies with a controlled design were included. Relevant publications were carefully selected and critically appraised by two reviewers.

Results: Thirteen studies were included. Ten studies evaluated static graphs and three dynamic formats. Most decision scenarios were hypothetical. Static graphs could improve accuracy, comprehension, and behavioural intention. But the results were heterogeneous and inconsistent among the studies. Dynamic
formats were not superior or even impaired performance compared to static formats.

Conclusions: Static graphs show promising but inconsistent results, while research on dynamic visualizations is scarce and must be interpreted cautiously due to methodical limitations. Practice implications: Well-designed and context-specific static graphs can support web-based cancer risk communication in particular populations. The application of dynamic formats cannot be recommended and needs further research.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1421-1431
JournalPatient Education and Counseling
Volume100
Issue number8
Early online date6 Feb 2017
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 6 Feb 2017

Fingerprint

Audiovisual Aids
Communication
Neoplasms
Research
MEDLINE
Caregivers
Publications
Databases
Health
Population

Cite this

Stellamanns, Jan ; Ruetters, Dana ; Dahal, Keshav ; Schillmoeller, Zita ; Huebner, Jutta. / Visualizing risks in cancer communication : A systematic review of computer-supported visual aids. In: Patient Education and Counseling. 2017 ; Vol. 100, No. 8. pp. 1421-1431.
@article{f7a0575f3aa74036aa90692602337333,
title = "Visualizing risks in cancer communication: A systematic review of computer-supported visual aids",
abstract = "Objective: Health websites are becoming important sources for cancer information. Lay users, patients and carers seek support for critical decisions, but they are prone to common biases when quantitative information is presented. Graphical representations of risk data can facilitate comprehension, and interactive visualizations are popular. This review summarizes the evidence on computer-supported graphs that present risk data and their effects on various measures. Methods: The systematic literature search was conducted in several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Only studies with a controlled design were included. Relevant publications were carefully selected and critically appraised by two reviewers.Results: Thirteen studies were included. Ten studies evaluated static graphs and three dynamic formats. Most decision scenarios were hypothetical. Static graphs could improve accuracy, comprehension, and behavioural intention. But the results were heterogeneous and inconsistent among the studies. Dynamicformats were not superior or even impaired performance compared to static formats.Conclusions: Static graphs show promising but inconsistent results, while research on dynamic visualizations is scarce and must be interpreted cautiously due to methodical limitations. Practice implications: Well-designed and context-specific static graphs can support web-based cancer risk communication in particular populations. The application of dynamic formats cannot be recommended and needs further research.",
author = "Jan Stellamanns and Dana Ruetters and Keshav Dahal and Zita Schillmoeller and Jutta Huebner",
note = "12 months embargo",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.003",
language = "English",
volume = "100",
pages = "1421--1431",
journal = "Patient Education and Counseling",
issn = "0738-3991",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",
number = "8",

}

Visualizing risks in cancer communication : A systematic review of computer-supported visual aids. / Stellamanns, Jan; Ruetters, Dana; Dahal, Keshav; Schillmoeller, Zita; Huebner, Jutta.

In: Patient Education and Counseling, Vol. 100, No. 8, 06.02.2017, p. 1421-1431.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Visualizing risks in cancer communication

T2 - A systematic review of computer-supported visual aids

AU - Stellamanns, Jan

AU - Ruetters, Dana

AU - Dahal, Keshav

AU - Schillmoeller, Zita

AU - Huebner, Jutta

N1 - 12 months embargo

PY - 2017/2/6

Y1 - 2017/2/6

N2 - Objective: Health websites are becoming important sources for cancer information. Lay users, patients and carers seek support for critical decisions, but they are prone to common biases when quantitative information is presented. Graphical representations of risk data can facilitate comprehension, and interactive visualizations are popular. This review summarizes the evidence on computer-supported graphs that present risk data and their effects on various measures. Methods: The systematic literature search was conducted in several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Only studies with a controlled design were included. Relevant publications were carefully selected and critically appraised by two reviewers.Results: Thirteen studies were included. Ten studies evaluated static graphs and three dynamic formats. Most decision scenarios were hypothetical. Static graphs could improve accuracy, comprehension, and behavioural intention. But the results were heterogeneous and inconsistent among the studies. Dynamicformats were not superior or even impaired performance compared to static formats.Conclusions: Static graphs show promising but inconsistent results, while research on dynamic visualizations is scarce and must be interpreted cautiously due to methodical limitations. Practice implications: Well-designed and context-specific static graphs can support web-based cancer risk communication in particular populations. The application of dynamic formats cannot be recommended and needs further research.

AB - Objective: Health websites are becoming important sources for cancer information. Lay users, patients and carers seek support for critical decisions, but they are prone to common biases when quantitative information is presented. Graphical representations of risk data can facilitate comprehension, and interactive visualizations are popular. This review summarizes the evidence on computer-supported graphs that present risk data and their effects on various measures. Methods: The systematic literature search was conducted in several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Only studies with a controlled design were included. Relevant publications were carefully selected and critically appraised by two reviewers.Results: Thirteen studies were included. Ten studies evaluated static graphs and three dynamic formats. Most decision scenarios were hypothetical. Static graphs could improve accuracy, comprehension, and behavioural intention. But the results were heterogeneous and inconsistent among the studies. Dynamicformats were not superior or even impaired performance compared to static formats.Conclusions: Static graphs show promising but inconsistent results, while research on dynamic visualizations is scarce and must be interpreted cautiously due to methodical limitations. Practice implications: Well-designed and context-specific static graphs can support web-based cancer risk communication in particular populations. The application of dynamic formats cannot be recommended and needs further research.

U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.003

DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.003

M3 - Article

VL - 100

SP - 1421

EP - 1431

JO - Patient Education and Counseling

JF - Patient Education and Counseling

SN - 0738-3991

IS - 8

ER -