No abstract

Background Patients frequently experience difficulties understanding communicated risks. The aim of this study was through a literature review to analyze if the use of visual risk communication tools improve risk understanding among patients in outpatient settings or general practice, and if one tool appears more useful than others. Method The electronic databases PubMed and PsycINFO were systematically searched. Relevant references were used for chain search to make sure all relevant literature was included. Results The main search revealed 1,157 titles. There were 13 eligible studies concerning visual risk communication in outpatient clinical settings. The design, quality and main findings of the studies were heterogeneous. However, most of the analysed studies found a significant positive effect of graphical, interactive and dynamic visual aids on risk communication. Conclusion There is currently not enough evidence to endorse one graphical format above others. Personalising the graph format to the type of risk information presented may facilitate a better understanding of risk and contribute to improve health and cost-efficacy.

Background Patients frequently experience difficulties understanding communicated risks. The aim of this study was through a literature review to analyze if the use of visual risk communication tools improve risk understanding among patients in outpatient settings or general practice, and if one tool appears more useful than others. Method The electronic databases PubMed and PsycINFO were systematically searched. Relevant references were used for chain search to make sure all relevant literature was included. Results The main search revealed 1,157 titles. There were 13 eligible studies concerning visual risk communication in outpatient clinical settings. The design, quality and main findings of the studies were heterogeneous. However, most of the analysed studies found a significant positive effect of graphical, interactive and dynamic visual aids on risk communication. Conclusion There is currently not enough evidence to endorse one graphical format above others. Personalising the graph format to the type of risk information presented may facilitate a better understanding of risk and contribute to improve health and cost-efficacy.

BackgroundPatients frequently experience difficulties understanding communicated risks. The aim of this study was through a literature review to analyze if the use of visual risk communication tools improve risk understanding among patients in outpatient settings or general practice, and if one tool appears more useful than others. MethodThe electronic databases PubMed and PsycINFO were systematically searched. Relevant references were used for chain search to make sure all relevant literature was included. ResultsThe main search revealed 1,157 titles. There were 13 eligible studies concerning visual risk communication in outpatient clinical settings. The design, quality and main findings of the studies were heterogeneous. However, most of the analysed studies found a significant positive effect of graphical, interactive and dynamic visual aids on risk communication. ConclusionThere is currently not enough evidence to endorse one graphical format above others. Personalising the graph format to the type of risk information presented may facilitate a better understanding of risk and contribute to improve health and cost-efficacy. BackgroundRisk communication is an integrated part of standard consultations in general practice and other outpatient clinics. Patients are verbally informed about their individual risks, prognoses and treatment options, often within a short time and sometimes with unfamiliar and quantitative terms.There can be many factors influencing how well people assess and understand risk, including age, level of education, culture and gender (1). Research has shown that limited understanding of risk, particularly numerical risk information, can jeopardise preventive efforts as well as the understanding of diagnosis and treatment options (2). This is supported by findings where higher levels of verbatim knowledge (the ability to correctly read numbers from graphs) and gist knowledge (the ability to