Use of a quantitative data report in a hypothetical decision scenario for health policymaking: a computer-assisted laboratory study.
Data use
Decision-making
Evidence-based health policy
Eye-tracking
Health policy
Laboratory
Reading behavior
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 01 2021
28 01 2021
Historique:
received:
06
07
2020
accepted:
14
01
2021
entrez:
29
1
2021
pubmed:
30
1
2021
medline:
24
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Quantitative data reports are widely produced to inform health policy decisions. Policymakers are expected to critically assess provided information in order to incorporate the best available evidence into the decision-making process. Many other factors are known to influence this process, but little is known about how quantitative data reports are actually read. We explored the reading behavior of (future) health policy decision-makers, using innovative methods. We conducted a computer-assisted laboratory study, involving starting and advanced students in medicine and health sciences, and professionals as participants. They read a quantitative data report to inform a decision on the use of resources for long-term care in dementia in a hypothetical decision scenario. Data were collected through eye-tracking, questionnaires, and a brief interview. Eye-tracking data were used to generate 'heatmaps' and five measures of reading behavior. The questionnaires provided participants' perceptions of understandability and helpfulness as well as individual characteristics. Interviews documented reasons for attention to specific report sections. The quantitative analysis was largely descriptive, complemented by Pearson correlations. Interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. In total, 46 individuals participated [students (85%), professionals (15%)]. Eye-tracking observations showed that the participants spent equal time and attention for most parts of the presented report, but were less focused when reading the methods section. The qualitative content analysis identified 29 reasons for attention to a report section related to four topics. Eye-tracking measures were largely unrelated to participants' perceptions of understandability and helpfulness of the report. Eye-tracking data added information on reading behaviors that were not captured by questionnaires or interviews with health decision-makers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Quantitative data reports are widely produced to inform health policy decisions. Policymakers are expected to critically assess provided information in order to incorporate the best available evidence into the decision-making process. Many other factors are known to influence this process, but little is known about how quantitative data reports are actually read. We explored the reading behavior of (future) health policy decision-makers, using innovative methods.
METHODS
We conducted a computer-assisted laboratory study, involving starting and advanced students in medicine and health sciences, and professionals as participants. They read a quantitative data report to inform a decision on the use of resources for long-term care in dementia in a hypothetical decision scenario. Data were collected through eye-tracking, questionnaires, and a brief interview. Eye-tracking data were used to generate 'heatmaps' and five measures of reading behavior. The questionnaires provided participants' perceptions of understandability and helpfulness as well as individual characteristics. Interviews documented reasons for attention to specific report sections. The quantitative analysis was largely descriptive, complemented by Pearson correlations. Interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS
In total, 46 individuals participated [students (85%), professionals (15%)]. Eye-tracking observations showed that the participants spent equal time and attention for most parts of the presented report, but were less focused when reading the methods section. The qualitative content analysis identified 29 reasons for attention to a report section related to four topics. Eye-tracking measures were largely unrelated to participants' perceptions of understandability and helpfulness of the report.
CONCLUSIONS
Eye-tracking data added information on reading behaviors that were not captured by questionnaires or interviews with health decision-makers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33509172
doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01401-4
pii: 10.1186/s12911-021-01401-4
pmc: PMC7845041
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
32Références
Vision Res. 1996 Jun;36(12):1827-37
pubmed: 8759451
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Feb;24(1):55-64
pubmed: 22166856
BMC Public Health. 2015 Apr 15;15:381
pubmed: 25886054
Milbank Q. 2007 Dec;85(4):729-68
pubmed: 18070335
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2019 Aug;144-145:78-83
pubmed: 31201124
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2019 Aug;62(8):993-1003
pubmed: 31243489
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Jul 14;21(1):143
pubmed: 32664885
CMAJ. 2016 Jan 5;188(1):25-32
pubmed: 26504102
J Nurs Care Qual. 2016 Apr-Jun;31(2):124-30
pubmed: 26323050
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:35-48
pubmed: 16053582
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Apr;5(2):65-6
pubmed: 10947548
Med Decis Making. 2018 Aug;38(6):658-672
pubmed: 30074879
Implement Sci. 2016 Jan 12;11:4
pubmed: 26753923
BMJ. 2006 Aug 5;333(7562):284
pubmed: 16840441
Health Educ Res. 2015 Dec;30(6):840-8
pubmed: 26464418
Curr Biol. 2014 Mar 31;24(7):R281-2
pubmed: 24698378
Am J Public Health. 1997 May;87(5):842-5
pubmed: 9184517
Health Res Policy Syst. 2013 May 24;11:19
pubmed: 23705832
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21704
pubmed: 21818262
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jan 03;14:2
pubmed: 24383766
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Nov;25(11):860-869
pubmed: 26543066
Implement Sci. 2016 Feb 06;11:16
pubmed: 26852131
Health Policy. 2017 Mar;121(3):273-281
pubmed: 28139253
Science. 1964 Mar 13;143(3611):1190-2
pubmed: 17833905
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):448-55
pubmed: 18755566
Med Decis Making. 2015 May;35(4):487-500
pubmed: 25769496
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):444-57
pubmed: 20671213
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Apr 26;15(1):35
pubmed: 28446185
PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001308
pubmed: 22984354
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Mar 17;14:20
pubmed: 26983405
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Aug;62(8):1457-506
pubmed: 19449261
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 2;22(4):e15876
pubmed: 32238342
Implement Sci. 2016 Dec 9;11(1):162
pubmed: 27938409
Emerg Med J. 2003 Sep;20(5):453-8
pubmed: 12954688