Dataset Information

Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine and compare preferences of knowledge users for two different formats of summarizing results from systematic reviews: infographics and critical appraisals.

Design

Cross-sectional.

Setting

Annual members' meeting of a Network of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization called TREKK (Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids). TREKK is a national network of researchers, clinicians, health consumers, and relevant organizations with the goal of mobilizing knowledge to improve emergency care for children.

Participants

Members of the TREKK Network attending the annual meeting in October 2013.

Outcome measures

Overall preference for infographic vs. critical appraisal format. Members' rating of each format on a 10-point Likert scale for clarity, comprehensibility, and aesthetic appeal. Members' impressions of the appropriateness of the two formats for their professional role and for other audiences.

Results

Among 64 attendees, 58 members provided feedback (91%). Overall, their preferred format was divided with 24/47 (51%) preferring the infographic to the critical appraisal. Preference varied by professional role, with 15/22 (68%) of physicians preferring the critical appraisal and 8/12 (67%) of nurses preferring the infographic. The critical appraisal was rated higher for clarity (mean 7.8 vs. 7.0; p = 0.03), while the infographic was rated higher for aesthetic appeal (mean 7.2 vs. 5.0; p<0.001). There was no difference between formats for comprehensibility (mean 7.6 critical appraisal vs. 7.1 infographic; p = 0.09). Respondents indicated the infographic would be most useful for patients and their caregivers, while the critical appraisal would be most useful for their professional roles.

Conclusions

Infographics are considered more aesthetically appealing for summarizing evidence; however, critical appraisal formats are considered clearer and more comprehensible. Our findings show differences in terms of audience-specific preferences for presentation of research results. This study supports other research indicating that tools for knowledge dissemination and translation need to be targeted to specific end users' preferences and needs.

SUBMITTER: Crick K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4605679 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals.

Crick Katelynn K Hartling Lisa L

PloS one 20151014 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine and compare preferences of knowledge users for two different formats of summarizing results from systematic reviews: infographics and critical appraisals.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional.<h4>Setting</h4>Annual members' meeting of a Network of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization called TREKK (Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids). TREKK is a national network of researchers, clinicians, health consumers, and relevant organizations with the goal of mobili ...[more]

PMID: 26466099

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEfforts to bridge the know-do gap have paved the way for development of the field of knowledge translation (KT). KT aims to understand how evidence use can best be promoted and supported through different activities. For dissemination activities, infographics are gaining in popularity as a promising KT tool to reach multiple health research users (eg, health practitioners, patients and families, decision-makers). However, to our knowledge, no study has yet mapped the available evidence on this tool using a systematic method. This scoping review will explore the depth and breadth of evidence on infographics use and its effectiveness in improving research uptake (eg, raising awareness, influencing attitudes, increasing knowledge, informing practice and changing behaviour).Methods and analysisWe will use the scoping review methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005), improved by Levac et al, and further refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (2020). The search will be conducted in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Social Science Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center, Cairn and Google Scholar. We will also search for relevant literature from the reference lists of the included publications. Two independent reviewers will select the studies. All study designs will be eligible for inclusion, with no date or publication status restrictions. The included studies will have evaluated infographics that disseminate health research evidence and target a non-scientific audience. A data extraction form will be developed and used to extract and chart the data, which will then be synthesised to present a descriptive summary of the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. To inform the research and KT communities, various dissemination activities will be developed, including user-friendly KT tools (eg, webinars, fact sheets and infographics), open-access publication and presentations at KT events and conferences.

Project description:BackgroundClear communication about the possible outcomes of proposed medical interventions is an integral part of medical care. Despite its importance, there have been few studies comparing different formats for presenting probabilistic information to patients, especially when small probabilities are involved. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential usefulness of several new small-risk graphic communication formats.MethodsInformation about the likelihoods of cancer and cancer prevention associated with two hypothetical cancer screening programs were used to create an augmented bar chart, an augmented grouped icon display, a flow chart, and three paired combinations of these formats. In the study scenario, the baseline risk of cancer was 53 per 1,000 (5.3%). The risk associated with cancer screening option A was 38 per 1,000 (3.8%) and the risk associated with screening option B was 29 per 1,000 (2.9%). Both the augmented bar chart and the augmented grouped icon display contained magnified views of the differences in cancer risk and cancer prevention associated with the screening programs. A convenience sample of 29 subjects (mean age 56.4 years; 76% men) used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to indicate their relative preferences for the six formats using 15 sequential paired comparisons.ResultsThe most preferred format was the combined augmented bar chart + flow diagram (mean preference score 0.43) followed by the combined augmented icon + augmented bar chart format (mean preference score 0.22). The overall differences among the six formats were statistically significant: Kruskal-Wallis Chi Square = 141.4, p < 0.0001. The three combined formats all had statistically significant higher preferences scores than the single format displays (p < 0.05).ConclusionThese findings suggest that patients may prefer combined, rather than single, graphic risk presentation formats and that augmented bar charts and icon displays may be useful for conveying comparative information about small risks to clinical decision makers. Further research to confirm and extend these findings is warranted.

Project description:ImportancePractice guidelines recommend that clinicians engage patients in treatment decisions and explain atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk but do not describe how to communicate this risk most effectively.ObjectiveTo determine how the ASCVD risk time horizon, outcome, and presentation format influence risk perceptions and treatment preferences.Design, setting, and participantsFrom May 27, 2015, through November 12, 2015, participants from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry at 140 US cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices were presented 3 independent scenarios (representing the same hypothetical patient) and asked to rate their perceived risk and willingness to take medication to lower risk in light of (1) a 15% 10-year ASCVD event risk, (2) a 4% 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) death risk, and (3) a 50% lifetime ASCVD event risk.ExposuresParticipants were randomized to receive risk estimates using numbers only, a bar graph, or a face pictogram.ResultsOf 3566 eligible participants, 2708 (76.9%) responded (median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 61-76 years]; 280 [10.3%] African American; 1491 men [55.1%]). When shown the lifetime ASCVD risk, respondents were more likely to consider the risk "high to very high" than when presented the 10-year ASCVD risk or the CVD death risk (70.1% vs 31.4% vs 25.7%, respectively; both P < .001). Treatment willingness was also the highest for lifetime ASCVD risk (77.9% very willing) followed by 10-year ASCVD risk (68.1%) and 10-year CVD death risk (63.1%; both P < .001). Compared with participants who were shown a bar graph or no graphic, those who were shown the risk information with a pictogram had the lowest perception of disease severity and the lowest willingness to consider therapy. These findings were robust across demographic and socioeconomic subgroups.Conclusions and relevanceThe format, time horizon, and outcome used for risk estimation influence patient perceptions and should be considered when designing risk communication tools. When shown lifetime risk estimates, patients had higher risk perception and willingness for therapy than when shown 10-year estimates. Pictogram risk displays may decrease risk perception and consideration for treatment.

Dataset Information

Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure