Differences in Data Trustworthiness and Risk Perception between Bar Graphs and Pictograms.
bar graph
health literacy
pictogram
reliability
risk perception
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 04 2022
13 04 2022
Historique:
received:
08
02
2022
revised:
29
03
2022
accepted:
05
04
2022
entrez:
23
4
2022
pubmed:
24
4
2022
medline:
27
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We investigated whether differences in presentation style affect risk perception, understanding, preference, and trust toward data. One hundred and sixty Fukushima Medical University students were shown the lifetime probability of breast cancer incidence for a 50-year-old woman, presented in both a pictogram and a horizontal bar graph format. Participants rated each of the following on a five-point scale by looking at each figure: risk perception, perceived truth of data, and comparative risk perception. The perceived truth of data was high for pictograms, especially among men and among those defined as having lower health literacy. Women correctly perceived the risk of breast cancer as higher than that of dying in a car accident when the data were presented on a pictogram. There was no difference in risk perception, perceived truth of data, or comparative risk perception arising from being shown the bar graphs and the pictograms in a particular order. There was a 50/50 split on which type of graph was perceived as easier to understand, but the preference was for the pictogram format. It is important to devise a visual method of health communication that considers the purpose of the information and characteristics of the target audience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35457556
pii: ijerph19084690
doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084690
pmc: PMC9030082
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Am J Med. 2012 Nov;125(11):1103-10
pubmed: 22939094
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Feb;24(1):55-64
pubmed: 22166856
J Health Commun. 2010 Jul;15(5):487-501
pubmed: 20677054
Japan Med Assoc J. 2015 Sep 01;58(3):69-77
pubmed: 26870621
Health Educ Res. 2021 Mar 23;36(1):9-40
pubmed: 33331898
Am J Public Health. 2009 Dec;99(12):2196-202
pubmed: 19833983
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 24;9(4):e94582
pubmed: 24762459
BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Mar 23;14:40
pubmed: 23522359
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Jan;104(1):109-117
pubmed: 32727670
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 11;15(11):e0241844
pubmed: 33175891
JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Dec 1;3(12):1192-1199
pubmed: 30419113
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021 Aug;17(8):1518-1522
pubmed: 33139214
BMJ Open. 2022 Jan 19;12(1):e052731
pubmed: 35046000
J Health Commun. 2006 Sep;11(6):569-82
pubmed: 16950729
J Health Commun. 2003;8 Suppl 1:104-15
pubmed: 14692575
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):448-55
pubmed: 18755566
Osteoporos Int. 2022 Jan;33(1):13-26
pubmed: 34559256
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 Nov-Dec;13(6):608-18
pubmed: 16929039
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Nov;101(11):1900-1905
pubmed: 30305252
Ann Fam Med. 2005 Nov-Dec;3(6):514-22
pubmed: 16338915
Am Fam Physician. 2015 Jul 15;92(2):118-24
pubmed: 26176370
Asia Pac J Public Health. 2017 Mar;29(2_suppl):74S-89S
pubmed: 28330403
Health Promot Int. 2008 Sep;23(3):269-74
pubmed: 18515303