Communicating Uncertainty From Limitations in Quality of Evidence to the Public in Written Health Information: Protocol for a Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.
consumer health information
decision making
uncertainty
Journal
JMIR research protocols
ISSN: 1929-0748
Titre abrégé: JMIR Res Protoc
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101599504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 May 2019
13 May 2019
Historique:
received:
17
01
2019
accepted:
05
04
2019
revised:
05
04
2019
entrez:
17
5
2019
pubmed:
17
5
2019
medline:
17
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Uncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers. The objective of this study is to design an experiment to examine how different degrees of uncertainty (Q1) and different types of uncertainty (Q2) impact patients' perception of treatment effectiveness, the body of evidence, text quality, and hypothetical treatment intention. The experiment also examines whether there is an additive effect when multiple sources of uncertainty are communicated (Q3). We developed 8 variations of a research summary set in a hypothetical scenario for a treatment decision in the context of tinnitus. These were modified only in the degree of uncertainty relating to the evidence of the presented treatment. We recruited members of the German public from a Web-based research panel and randomized them to one of 8 variations of the research summary to examine the 3 research questions. The trial was only open to the members of the research panel. The outcomes are perception of the effectiveness of the treatment (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence relating to the treatment, text quality, and decisional intention (secondary). Outcomes were self-assessed. We aimed to recruit 1500 participants to the trial. The recruitment and data collection was fully automated. Ethical approval was waivered by an ethics committee because of the negligible risk to participants. This protocol is retrospectively published in its original format. In the meantime, the trial was set up and the data collection was completed. Data collection was conducted in May 2018. A total of 1727 eligible panel members were enrolled. We aim to publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of 2019. In addition, results will be presented at conferences and disseminated among developers of guidance for the development of evidence-based health information and decision aids. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/77zyZTGzk). DERR1-10.2196/13425.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Uncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to design an experiment to examine how different degrees of uncertainty (Q1) and different types of uncertainty (Q2) impact patients' perception of treatment effectiveness, the body of evidence, text quality, and hypothetical treatment intention. The experiment also examines whether there is an additive effect when multiple sources of uncertainty are communicated (Q3).
METHODS
METHODS
We developed 8 variations of a research summary set in a hypothetical scenario for a treatment decision in the context of tinnitus. These were modified only in the degree of uncertainty relating to the evidence of the presented treatment. We recruited members of the German public from a Web-based research panel and randomized them to one of 8 variations of the research summary to examine the 3 research questions. The trial was only open to the members of the research panel. The outcomes are perception of the effectiveness of the treatment (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence relating to the treatment, text quality, and decisional intention (secondary). Outcomes were self-assessed. We aimed to recruit 1500 participants to the trial. The recruitment and data collection was fully automated. Ethical approval was waivered by an ethics committee because of the negligible risk to participants.
RESULTS
RESULTS
This protocol is retrospectively published in its original format. In the meantime, the trial was set up and the data collection was completed. Data collection was conducted in May 2018. A total of 1727 eligible panel members were enrolled.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We aim to publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of 2019. In addition, results will be presented at conferences and disseminated among developers of guidance for the development of evidence-based health information and decision aids.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/77zyZTGzk).
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
UNASSIGNED
DERR1-10.2196/13425.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31094343
pii: v8i5e13425
doi: 10.2196/13425
pmc: PMC6535974
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e13425Informations de copyright
©Roland Brian Büchter, Cornelia Betsch, Martina Ehrlich, Dennis Fechtelpeter, Ulrich Grouven, Sabine Keller, Regina Meuer, Constanze Rossmann, Andreas Waltering. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 13.05.2019.
Références
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:451-82
pubmed: 21126183
Med Decis Making. 2011 Nov-Dec;31(6):828-38
pubmed: 22067431
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Nov;89(2):252-9
pubmed: 22858415
J Health Commun. 2012;17 Suppl 3:141-59
pubmed: 23030567
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2013 Nov;(213):1-520
pubmed: 24423078
Public Underst Sci. 2016 Aug;25(6):638-55
pubmed: 25814513
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jun;99(6):974-80
pubmed: 26823204