Visual analogies, not graphs, increase patients' comprehension of changes in their health status

Abstract  Objectives Patients increasingly use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to self-monitor their health status. Visualizing PROs longitudinally (over time) could help patients interpret and contextualize their PROs. The study sought to assess hospitalized patients' objective comprehension...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 2020-05, Vol.27 (5), p.677-689
Hauptverfasser: Reading Turchioe, Meghan, Grossman, Lisa V, Myers, Annie C, Baik, Dawon, Goyal, Parag, Masterson Creber, Ruth M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract  Objectives Patients increasingly use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to self-monitor their health status. Visualizing PROs longitudinally (over time) could help patients interpret and contextualize their PROs. The study sought to assess hospitalized patients' objective comprehension (primary outcome) of text-only, non-graph, and graph visualizations that display longitudinal PROs. Materials and Methods We conducted a clinical research study in 40 hospitalized patients comparing 4 visualization conditions: (1) text-only, (2) text plus visual analogy, (3) text plus number line, and (4) text plus line graph. Each participant viewed every condition, and we used counterbalancing (systematic randomization) to control for potential order effects. We assessed objective comprehension using the International Organization for Standardization protocol. Secondary outcomes included response times, preferences, risk perceptions, and behavioral intentions. Results Overall, 63% correctly comprehended the text-only condition and 60% comprehended the line graph condition, compared with 83% for the visual analogy and 70% for the number line (P = .05) conditions. Participants comprehended the visual analogy significantly better than the text-only (P = .02) and line graph (P = .02) conditions. Of participants who comprehended at least 1 condition, 14% preferred a condition that they did not comprehend. Low comprehension was associated with worse cognition (P 
ISSN:1527-974X
1067-5027
1527-974X
DOI:10.1093/jamia/ocz217