Simple and multistate survival curves: Can people learn to use them?

Tim Rakow; Rebecca J. Wright; Catherine Bull; David J. Spiegelhalter

doi:10.1177/0272989X12451057

Simple and multistate survival curves: Can people learn to use them?

Tim Rakow^*, Rebecca J. Wright, Catherine Bull, David J. Spiegelhalter

^*Corresponding author for this work

Psychology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective and Sample: This investigation assessed the comprehension of survival curves in a community sample of 88 young and middle-aged adults when several aspects of good practice for graphical communication were implemented, and it compared comprehension for alternative presentation formats. Design, Method, and Measurements: After reading worked examples of using survival curves that provided explanation and answers, participants answered questions on survival data for pairs of treatments. Study 1 compared presenting survival curves for both treatments on the same figure against presentation via 2 separate figures. Study 2 compared presenting data for 3 possible outcome states via a single "multistate" figure for each treatment against presenting each outcome on a separate figure (with both treatments on the same figure). Both studies compared alternative forms of questioning (e.g., "number alive" versus "number dead"). Numeracy levels (self-rated and objective measures) were also assessed. Results: Comprehension was generally good-exceeding 90% correct answers on half the questions-and was similar across alternative graphical formats. Lower accuracy was observed for questions requiring a calculation but was significantly lower only when the requirement for calculation was not explicit (13%-28% decrements in performance). In study 1, this effect was most acute for those with lower levels of numeracy. Subjective (self-rated) numeracy and objective (measured) numeracy were both moderate positive predictors of overall task accuracy (r 0.3). Conclusions: A high degree of accuracy in extracting information from survival curves is possible, as long as any calculations that are required are made explicit (e.g., finding differences between 2 survival rates). Therefore, practitioners need not avoid using survival curves in discussions with patients, although clear and explicit explanations are important .

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	792-804
Number of pages	13
Journal	Medical Decision Making
Volume	32
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X12451057
Publication status	Published - Nov 2012

Keywords

numeracy
Risk communication
survival curves
visual displays

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1177/0272989X12451057

Cite this

@article{94c4b02b960646c28cee7e4b84a0b080,

title = "Simple and multistate survival curves: Can people learn to use them?",

abstract = "Objective and Sample: This investigation assessed the comprehension of survival curves in a community sample of 88 young and middle-aged adults when several aspects of good practice for graphical communication were implemented, and it compared comprehension for alternative presentation formats. Design, Method, and Measurements: After reading worked examples of using survival curves that provided explanation and answers, participants answered questions on survival data for pairs of treatments. Study 1 compared presenting survival curves for both treatments on the same figure against presentation via 2 separate figures. Study 2 compared presenting data for 3 possible outcome states via a single {"}multistate{"} figure for each treatment against presenting each outcome on a separate figure (with both treatments on the same figure). Both studies compared alternative forms of questioning (e.g., {"}number alive{"} versus {"}number dead{"}). Numeracy levels (self-rated and objective measures) were also assessed. Results: Comprehension was generally good-exceeding 90% correct answers on half the questions-and was similar across alternative graphical formats. Lower accuracy was observed for questions requiring a calculation but was significantly lower only when the requirement for calculation was not explicit (13%-28% decrements in performance). In study 1, this effect was most acute for those with lower levels of numeracy. Subjective (self-rated) numeracy and objective (measured) numeracy were both moderate positive predictors of overall task accuracy (r 0.3). Conclusions: A high degree of accuracy in extracting information from survival curves is possible, as long as any calculations that are required are made explicit (e.g., finding differences between 2 survival rates). Therefore, practitioners need not avoid using survival curves in discussions with patients, although clear and explicit explanations are important .",

keywords = "numeracy, Risk communication, survival curves, visual displays",

author = "Tim Rakow and Wright, {Rebecca J.} and Catherine Bull and Spiegelhalter, {David J.}",

year = "2012",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1177/0272989X12451057",

language = "English",

volume = "32",

pages = "792--804",

journal = "Medical Decision Making",

issn = "0272-989X",

publisher = "Sage Publications",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Simple and multistate survival curves

T2 - Can people learn to use them?

AU - Rakow, Tim

AU - Wright, Rebecca J.

AU - Bull, Catherine

AU - Spiegelhalter, David J.

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - Objective and Sample: This investigation assessed the comprehension of survival curves in a community sample of 88 young and middle-aged adults when several aspects of good practice for graphical communication were implemented, and it compared comprehension for alternative presentation formats. Design, Method, and Measurements: After reading worked examples of using survival curves that provided explanation and answers, participants answered questions on survival data for pairs of treatments. Study 1 compared presenting survival curves for both treatments on the same figure against presentation via 2 separate figures. Study 2 compared presenting data for 3 possible outcome states via a single "multistate" figure for each treatment against presenting each outcome on a separate figure (with both treatments on the same figure). Both studies compared alternative forms of questioning (e.g., "number alive" versus "number dead"). Numeracy levels (self-rated and objective measures) were also assessed. Results: Comprehension was generally good-exceeding 90% correct answers on half the questions-and was similar across alternative graphical formats. Lower accuracy was observed for questions requiring a calculation but was significantly lower only when the requirement for calculation was not explicit (13%-28% decrements in performance). In study 1, this effect was most acute for those with lower levels of numeracy. Subjective (self-rated) numeracy and objective (measured) numeracy were both moderate positive predictors of overall task accuracy (r 0.3). Conclusions: A high degree of accuracy in extracting information from survival curves is possible, as long as any calculations that are required are made explicit (e.g., finding differences between 2 survival rates). Therefore, practitioners need not avoid using survival curves in discussions with patients, although clear and explicit explanations are important .

AB - Objective and Sample: This investigation assessed the comprehension of survival curves in a community sample of 88 young and middle-aged adults when several aspects of good practice for graphical communication were implemented, and it compared comprehension for alternative presentation formats. Design, Method, and Measurements: After reading worked examples of using survival curves that provided explanation and answers, participants answered questions on survival data for pairs of treatments. Study 1 compared presenting survival curves for both treatments on the same figure against presentation via 2 separate figures. Study 2 compared presenting data for 3 possible outcome states via a single "multistate" figure for each treatment against presenting each outcome on a separate figure (with both treatments on the same figure). Both studies compared alternative forms of questioning (e.g., "number alive" versus "number dead"). Numeracy levels (self-rated and objective measures) were also assessed. Results: Comprehension was generally good-exceeding 90% correct answers on half the questions-and was similar across alternative graphical formats. Lower accuracy was observed for questions requiring a calculation but was significantly lower only when the requirement for calculation was not explicit (13%-28% decrements in performance). In study 1, this effect was most acute for those with lower levels of numeracy. Subjective (self-rated) numeracy and objective (measured) numeracy were both moderate positive predictors of overall task accuracy (r 0.3). Conclusions: A high degree of accuracy in extracting information from survival curves is possible, as long as any calculations that are required are made explicit (e.g., finding differences between 2 survival rates). Therefore, practitioners need not avoid using survival curves in discussions with patients, although clear and explicit explanations are important .

KW - numeracy

KW - Risk communication

KW - survival curves

KW - visual displays

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870501986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0272989X12451057

DO - 10.1177/0272989X12451057

M3 - Article

C2 - 22753419

AN - SCOPUS:84870501986

SN - 0272-989X

VL - 32

SP - 792

EP - 804

JO - Medical Decision Making

JF - Medical Decision Making

IS - 6

ER -

Simple and multistate survival curves: Can people learn to use them?

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this