This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Appendix All Versions of this Article: M2115v1 13/6/608    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ancker, J. S. Articles by Starren, J. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ancker, J. S. Articles by Starren, J. B.

Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review

^a Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY
^b Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY
^c Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, WI

^_* Correspondence and reprints: Jessica S. Ancker, MPH, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 622 W. 168th Street, Vanderbilt Clinic 5th Floor, New York, NY 10034. (Email: jsa2002{at}columbia.edu).

Received for publication: 03/30/06; accepted for publication: 06/17/06.

This review describes recent experimental and focus group research on graphics as a method of communication about quantitative health risks. Some of the studies discussed in this review assessed effect of graphs on quantitative reasoning, others assessed effects on behavior or behavioral intentions, and still others assessed viewers’ likes and dislikes. Graphical features that improve the accuracy of quantitative reasoning appear to differ from the features most likely to alter behavior or intentions. For example, graphs that make part-to-whole relationships available visually may help people attend to the relationship between the numerator (the number of people affected by a hazard) and the denominator (the entire population at risk), whereas graphs that show only the numerator appear to inflate the perceived risk and may induce risk-averse behavior. Viewers often preferred design features such as visual simplicity and familiarity that were not associated with accurate quantitative judgments. Communicators should not assume that all graphics are more intuitive than text; many of the studies found that patients’ interpretations of the graphics were dependent upon expertise or instruction. Potentially useful directions for continuing research include interactions with educational level and numeracy and successful ways to communicate uncertainty about risk.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. F. Reyna A Theory of Medical Decision Making and Health: Fuzzy Trace Theory Med Decis Making, November 1, 2008; 28(6): 850 - 865. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Siegrist, P. Orlow, and C. Keller The Effect of Graphical and Numerical Presentation of Hypothetical Prenatal Diagnosis Results on Risk Perception Med Decis Making, July 1, 2008; 28(4): 567 - 574. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. S. Ancker and D. Kaufman Rethinking Health Numeracy: A Multidisciplinary Literature Review J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., November 1, 2007; 14(6): 713 - 721. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. M. Lipkus Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations Med Decis Making, October 1, 2007; 27(5): 696 - 713. [Abstract] [PDF]