TY - JOUR
T1 - Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers
T2 - a randomized trial
AU - Akl, Elie A.
AU - Maroun, Nancy
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Oxman, Andrew D.
AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo
AU - Vist, Gunn E.
AU - Devereaux, P. J.
AU - Montori, Victor M.
AU - Schünemann, Holger J.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2008 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2007/12
Y1 - 2007/12
N2 - Objective: To compare health care consumers' understanding, evaluations, and preferences for symbols vs. numbers and letters for the representation of strength of recommendations (SOR) and quality of evidence (QOE). Study Design and Setting: Questionnaire study in a randomized controlled design in the setting of a community health education program. Results: Eighty-four participants completed the questionnaire. For the presentation of the SOR, participants had better objective understanding of symbols than numbers (74% vs. 14%, P < 0.001). They also scored symbols positively, and numbers negatively for ease of understanding (mean difference [md] = 1.5, P = 0.001), clearness and conciseness (md = 1.5, P < 0.001), and conveyance of the degree of uncertainty (md = 0.7, P = 0.092). About half (48%) preferred symbols over numbers. For the presentation of the QOE, objective understanding of symbols and letters was similar (91% vs. 95%, P = 0.509). Participants scored both symbols and letters positively; the scores for symbols were however lower for ease of understanding (md = -0.7, P = 0.019), clearness and conciseness (md = -0.6, P = 0.051), and conveyance of the QOE (md = -0.4, P = 0.24). Conclusion: Symbols were superior to numbers for the presentation of the SOR. Objective understanding was high for both symbols and letters for the presentation of the QOE, but letters conveyed the QOE better than symbols.
AB - Objective: To compare health care consumers' understanding, evaluations, and preferences for symbols vs. numbers and letters for the representation of strength of recommendations (SOR) and quality of evidence (QOE). Study Design and Setting: Questionnaire study in a randomized controlled design in the setting of a community health education program. Results: Eighty-four participants completed the questionnaire. For the presentation of the SOR, participants had better objective understanding of symbols than numbers (74% vs. 14%, P < 0.001). They also scored symbols positively, and numbers negatively for ease of understanding (mean difference [md] = 1.5, P = 0.001), clearness and conciseness (md = 1.5, P < 0.001), and conveyance of the degree of uncertainty (md = 0.7, P = 0.092). About half (48%) preferred symbols over numbers. For the presentation of the QOE, objective understanding of symbols and letters was similar (91% vs. 95%, P = 0.509). Participants scored both symbols and letters positively; the scores for symbols were however lower for ease of understanding (md = -0.7, P = 0.019), clearness and conciseness (md = -0.6, P = 0.051), and conveyance of the QOE (md = -0.4, P = 0.24). Conclusion: Symbols were superior to numbers for the presentation of the SOR. Objective understanding was high for both symbols and letters for the presentation of the QOE, but letters conveyed the QOE better than symbols.
KW - Consumer participation
KW - Guidelines
KW - Letters
KW - Numbers
KW - Randomized controlled trial
KW - Symbols
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35848930992&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35848930992&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.011
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.011
M3 - Article
C2 - 17998085
AN - SCOPUS:35848930992
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 60
SP - 1298
EP - 1305
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
IS - 12
ER -