Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial
Symbols were superior to numbers for presenting strength of recommendations to health care consumers: a randomized trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.011
复制
发表时间：
2007-12-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Schunemann, Holger J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Akl, Elie A.;Maroun, Nancy;Schunemann, Holger J.
目的：比较医疗保健消费者对表示推荐强度（SOR）和证据质量（QOE）的符号与数字和字母的理解、评价和偏好。研究设计与情境：在社区健康教育计划的背景下，采用随机对照设计的问卷研究。结果：84名参与者完成了问卷调查。对于SOR的呈现，参与者对符号的客观理解优于数字（74%对14%，P < 0.001）。他们还在符号的易理解性（平均差值[md] = 1.5, P = 0.001）、清晰性和简洁性（md = 1.5, P < 0.001）和不确定程度的传达性（md = 0.7, P = 0.092）方面给符号打分为正，给数字打分为负。大约一半（48%）的人更喜欢符号而不是数字。对于QOE的呈现，对符号和字母的客观理解相似（91%对95%，P = 0.509）。参与者对符号和字母的得分都是正面的；符号的易理解性（md = -0.7, P = 0.019）、清晰性和简洁性（md = -0.6, P = 0.051）和QOE的传达性（md = -0.4, P = 0.24）得分较低。结论：符号的表现优于数字的表现。符号和字母对质量质量的客观理解程度均较高，但字母对质量质量的表达优于符号。(C) 2007爱思唯尔公司版权所有。
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. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.