Abstract:Background: The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of using alternative statistical presentations of the same risks and risk reductions on understanding, perception, persuasiveness and behaviour of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers. Search strategy: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), PsycLIT (1887 to October 2007), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 3). We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted experts in the field. Selection criteria: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled parallel and cross-over studies. We focused on four comparisons: a comparison of statistical presentations of a risk (eg frequencies versus probabilities) and three comparisons of statistical presentation of risk reduction: relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), RRR versus number needed to treat (NNT), and ARR versus NNT. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD). Main results: We included 35 studies reporting 83 comparisons. None of the studies involved policy makers. Participants (health professionals and consumers) understood natural frequencies better than probabilities (SMD 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.93)). Compared with ARR, RRR had little or no difference in understanding (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.43)) but was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.41 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.79)) and more persuasive (SMD 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.81)). Compared with NNT, RRR was better understood (SMD 0.73 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.04)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 1.15 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.50)) and was more persuasive (SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.80)). Compared with NNT, ARR was better understood (SMD 0.42 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.71)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.79 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.15)).There was little or no difference for persuasiveness (SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.15)). The sensitivity analyses including only high quality comparisons showed consistent results for persuasiveness for all three comparisons. Overall there were no differences between health professionals and consumers. The overall quality of evidence was rated down to moderate because of the use of surrogate outcomes and/or heterogeneity. None of the comparisons assessed behaviourbehaviour. Authors' conclusions: Natural frequencies are probably better understood than probabilities. Relative risk reduction (RRR), compared with absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT), may be perceived to be larger and is more likely to be persuasive. However, it is uncertain whether presenting RRR is likely to help people make decisions most consistent with their own values and, in fact, it could lead to misinterpretation. More research is needed to further explore this question.

Words and numbers: a comparative study of medical and journalism students' descriptors of risk, numeracy and preferences for health risk communication

Teaching Medical Students to Communicate Risks Like Military Intelligence Analysts

Assessing Risk Literacy Skills: Enhancing Healthcare Management among University Students

Communicating cardiovascular risk: Systematic review of qualitative evidence

Health Literacy amongst Health Professional University Students: A Study Using the Health Literacy Questionnaire

What are medical students' attitudes to clinical risk-scoring tools? An exploratory study

Health literacy: a cross-disciplinary study in American undergraduate college students

Teaching clinicians shared decision making and risk communication online: an evaluation study

Understanding and preferences regarding risk communication during pregnancy: a survey to facilitate provider communication with patients

Health Literacy as Communicative Action-A Qualitative Study among Persons at Risk in the Context of Predictive and Preventive Medicine

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions

Using health literacy principles to improve understanding of evolving evidence in health emergencies: Optimisation and evaluation of a COVID-19 vaccination risk-benefit calculator

From Calculation to Communication: Using Risk Score Calculators to Inform Clinical Decision Making and Facilitate Patient Engagement

Designing Support to help Health Communication Professionals Convey Numbers Clearly to the Public - A Needs Assessment and Formative Usability Evaluation

Risky business: medical students' feedback-seeking behaviours: a mixed methods study

Teaching plain language to medical students: improving communication with disadvantaged patients

Exploring medical and nursing students' perceptions about a patient safety course: a qualitative study

Lost in translation: the challenges of global communication in medical education publishing

Nursing Students' Health Literacy and Strategies to Foster Patients' Health Literacy

Digital Health Literacy and Infodemic: the impact on Italian medical students between 2019-2020

Online Plain Language Tool and Health Information Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial