Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAkl, Elie Anb_NO
dc.contributor.authorMaroun, Nancynb_NO
dc.contributor.authorGuyatt, Gordonnb_NO
dc.contributor.authorOxman, Andrew Davidnb_NO
dc.contributor.authorAlonso-Coello, Pablonb_NO
dc.contributor.authorVist, Gunn Elisabethnb_NO
dc.contributor.authorDevereaux, P Jnb_NO
dc.contributor.authorMontori, Victor Mnb_NO
dc.contributor.authorSchünemann, Holger Jnb_NO
dc.date.accessioned2008-08-31T19:42:12Znb_NO
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T14:19:06Z
dc.date.available2008-08-31T19:42:12Znb_NO
dc.date.available2016-02-08T14:19:06Z
dc.date.issued2007-12nb_NO
dc.identifier.citationJournal of clinical epidemiology 2007, 60 (12):1298-305en
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356nb_NO
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2377674
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: 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.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.subject.meshAdulten
dc.subject.meshAgeden
dc.subject.meshCommunicationen
dc.subject.meshCommunity Health Servicesen
dc.subject.meshComprehensionen
dc.subject.meshConsumer Satisfactionen
dc.subject.meshEvidence-Based Medicineen
dc.subject.meshHealth Educationen
dc.subject.meshHumansen
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden
dc.subject.meshProgram Evaluationen
dc.subject.meshQuestionnairesen
dc.subject.meshMaleen
dc.subject.meshFemaleen
dc.titleSymbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial.en
dc.title.alternativeComparison of two presentations of the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence: Healthcare consumers’ understanding, evaluations and preferences (authors' title on manus.)en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.source.journalJournal of clinical epidemiologyen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.011nb_NO
dc.identifier.pmid17998085nb_NO
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medicine, University at Buffalo, NY, USA.en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record