外行人对处方药促销中常用统计概念的理解:研究文献综述。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.08.092
Naomi Dyer Yount, Benedicta Osafo-Darko, Willow Burns, Maurice C Johnson, Kevin R Betts, Helen W Sullivan
{"title":"外行人对处方药促销中常用统计概念的理解:研究文献综述。","authors":"Naomi Dyer Yount, Benedicta Osafo-Darko, Willow Burns, Maurice C Johnson, Kevin R Betts, Helen W Sullivan","doi":"10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.08.092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The prevalence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising for prescription drugs has led to concerns about how consumers interpret the medical information conveyed in these ads. One strategy for improving lay understanding of medical information involves incorporating quantitative information about a treatment's potential benefits and risks.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This literature review investigates laypersons' interpretations of statistical concepts, expanding on past reviews and including terms that may be used in DTC prescription drug advertising.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched six databases for articles published from January 2000 to October 2021. Articles were included if they were in English and examined general or lay audiences' comprehension of quantitative or statistical concepts, without limiting the context of the studies to medical situations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 25 eligible articles. The evidence suggests that likelihood ratios, odds ratios, probabilities, numbers needed to treat/harm, and confidence intervals hinder comprehension of quantitative information. The results are mixed for information presented as frequencies, percentages, absolute risk reduction, and relative risk reduction. The mixed findings could be due to numeracy, framing as risks or benefits, and operationalization of the outcomes. We found no studies examining interpretations of minimum, maximum, central tendency, power, statistical significance, or hazard ratio.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Studies spanning several decades have examined how laypeople interpret statistical concepts. While a few terms are consistently studied, many questions still remain on how to make risk information more understandable to lay audiences, particularly those with low numeracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48126,"journal":{"name":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":"1075-1088"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laypersons' understanding of statistical concepts commonly used in prescription drug promotion: A review of the research literature.\",\"authors\":\"Naomi Dyer Yount, Benedicta Osafo-Darko, Willow Burns, Maurice C Johnson, Kevin R Betts, Helen W Sullivan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.08.092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The prevalence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising for prescription drugs has led to concerns about how consumers interpret the medical information conveyed in these ads. One strategy for improving lay understanding of medical information involves incorporating quantitative information about a treatment's potential benefits and risks.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This literature review investigates laypersons' interpretations of statistical concepts, expanding on past reviews and including terms that may be used in DTC prescription drug advertising.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched six databases for articles published from January 2000 to October 2021. Articles were included if they were in English and examined general or lay audiences' comprehension of quantitative or statistical concepts, without limiting the context of the studies to medical situations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 25 eligible articles. The evidence suggests that likelihood ratios, odds ratios, probabilities, numbers needed to treat/harm, and confidence intervals hinder comprehension of quantitative information. The results are mixed for information presented as frequencies, percentages, absolute risk reduction, and relative risk reduction. The mixed findings could be due to numeracy, framing as risks or benefits, and operationalization of the outcomes. We found no studies examining interpretations of minimum, maximum, central tendency, power, statistical significance, or hazard ratio.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Studies spanning several decades have examined how laypeople interpret statistical concepts. While a few terms are consistently studied, many questions still remain on how to make risk information more understandable to lay audiences, particularly those with low numeracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1075-1088\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.08.092\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.08.092","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:处方药直接面向消费者(DTC)广告的盛行引起了人们对消费者如何理解这些广告所传达的医疗信息的关注。改善非专业人士对医疗信息理解的一种策略是将有关治疗的潜在益处和风险的定量信息纳入其中:本文献综述调查了非专业人士对统计概念的解释,对过去的综述进行了扩展,并纳入了 DTC 处方药广告中可能使用的术语:我们在六个数据库中检索了 2000 年 1 月至 2021 年 10 月间发表的文章。只要文章是英文的,并研究了普通或非专业受众对定量或统计概念的理解,且研究背景不局限于医疗情况,均可纳入:我们确定了 25 篇符合条件的文章。有证据表明,似然比、几率比、概率、需要治疗/伤害的人数以及置信区间会妨碍对定量信息的理解。以频率、百分比、绝对风险降低率和相对风险降低率表示的信息结果不一。结果不一的原因可能与计算能力、风险或收益的框架以及结果的可操作性有关。我们没有发现任何研究对最小值、最大值、中心倾向、功率、统计显著性或危险比进行解释:跨越几十年的研究考察了非专业人士如何解释统计概念。虽然对一些术语进行了持续研究,但在如何让非专业受众,尤其是计算能力较低的受众更容易理解风险信息方面,仍存在许多问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Laypersons' understanding of statistical concepts commonly used in prescription drug promotion: A review of the research literature.

Background: The prevalence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising for prescription drugs has led to concerns about how consumers interpret the medical information conveyed in these ads. One strategy for improving lay understanding of medical information involves incorporating quantitative information about a treatment's potential benefits and risks.

Objective: This literature review investigates laypersons' interpretations of statistical concepts, expanding on past reviews and including terms that may be used in DTC prescription drug advertising.

Methods: We searched six databases for articles published from January 2000 to October 2021. Articles were included if they were in English and examined general or lay audiences' comprehension of quantitative or statistical concepts, without limiting the context of the studies to medical situations.

Results: We identified 25 eligible articles. The evidence suggests that likelihood ratios, odds ratios, probabilities, numbers needed to treat/harm, and confidence intervals hinder comprehension of quantitative information. The results are mixed for information presented as frequencies, percentages, absolute risk reduction, and relative risk reduction. The mixed findings could be due to numeracy, framing as risks or benefits, and operationalization of the outcomes. We found no studies examining interpretations of minimum, maximum, central tendency, power, statistical significance, or hazard ratio.

Conclusion: Studies spanning several decades have examined how laypeople interpret statistical concepts. While a few terms are consistently studied, many questions still remain on how to make risk information more understandable to lay audiences, particularly those with low numeracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy
Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
225
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy (RSAP) is a quarterly publication featuring original scientific reports and comprehensive review articles in the social and administrative pharmaceutical sciences. Topics of interest include outcomes evaluation of products, programs, or services; pharmacoepidemiology; medication adherence; direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medications; disease state management; health systems reform; drug marketing; medication distribution systems such as e-prescribing; web-based pharmaceutical/medical services; drug commerce and re-importation; and health professions workforce issues.
期刊最新文献
Concordance between pharmacy dispensing and electronic monitoring data of direct oral anticoagulants - A secondary analysis of the MAAESTRO study. Development and validation of a predictive scoring model for risk stratification of tuberculosis treatment interruption. The effects of free prescriptions on community pharmacy selection: A discrete choice experiment. A graphical model to make explicit pharmacist clinical reasoning during medication review. Developing and validating development goals towards transforming a global framework for pharmacy practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1