Abstract:Background. Online, algorithmically driven prognostic tools are increasingly important in medical decision making. Institutions developing such tools need to be able to communicate the precision and accuracy of the information in a trustworthy manner, and so many attempt to communicate uncertainties but also use institutional logos to underscore their trustworthiness. Bringing together theories on trust, uncertainty, and psychological distance in a novel way, we tested whether and how the communication of uncertainty and the presence of institutional logos together affected trust in medical information, the prognostic tool itself, and treatment decisions. Methods. A pilot and 2 online experiments in which UK (experiment 1) and worldwide (experiment 2) participants (Ntotal = 4,724) were randomized to 1 of 12 arms in a 3 (uncertainty cue) × 4 (institutional cue) between-subjects design. The stimulus was based on an existing medical prognostic tool. Results. Institutional trust was consistently associated with trust in the prognostic tool itself, while uncertainty information had no consistent effect. Institutional trust predicted the amount of weight participants reported placing on institutional endorsements in their decision making and the likelihood of switching from passive to active treatment in a hypothetical scenario. There was also a significant effect of psychological distance to (perceived hypotheticality of) the scenario. Conclusions/Implications. These results underline the importance of institutions demonstrating trustworthiness and building trust with their users. They also suggest that users tend to be insensitive to communications of uncertainty and that communicators may need to be highly explicit when attempting to warn of low precision or quality of evidence. The effect of the perceived hypotheticality of the scenario underscores the importance of realistic decision-making scenarios for studies and the role of familiarity with the decision dilemma generally. Highlights: In a world where information for medical decision making is increasingly going to be provided through digital, online tools, institutions providing such tools need guidance on how best to communicate about their trustworthiness and precision.We find that people are fairly insensitive to cues designed to communicate uncertainty around the outputs of such tools. Even putting "ATTENTION" in bold font or explicitly pointing out the weaknesses in the data did not appear to affect people's decision making using the tool's outputs. Institutions should take note, and further work is required to determine how best to communicate uncertainty in a way that elicits appropriate caution in lay users.People were much more sensitive to institutional logos associated with the outputs. Generalized institutional trust (rather than trust in the specific institution whose logo was shown) was associated with how trustworthy, accurate, and reliable the tool, its algorithm, and the numbers it produced were perceived to be. This underscores the role of societal trust in institutions at large.Finally, as a note to researchers, we found a significant effect of how hypothetical or believable participants felt the experimental scenario was. This is a variable that seems rarely controlled for in studies and yet played as much of a role as some of our variables of interest, so we suggest that it is measured in future experiments.

Uncertainty in healthcare and health decision making: Five methodological and conceptual research recommendations from an interdisciplinary team

Uncertainty in serious illness: A national interdisciplinary consensus exercise to identify clinical research priorities

Understanding and managing uncertainty in health care: revisiting and advancing sociological contributions

How Physicians Manage Medical Uncertainty: A Qualitative Study and Conceptual Taxonomy

Three Types of Uncertainty: A Qualitative Study of Family Medicine Residents

Causes and consequences of uncertainty about illness risk perceptions

Navigating Uncertainty in Clinical Practice: A Structured Approach

Understanding the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies

Unravelling Uncertainty Inception: When We Really Know That We Don't Know?

Managing anxiety and uncertainty: applying anxiety/uncertainty management theory to university health professionals and students’ communication

‘A whole lot of uncertainty’: A qualitative study exploring clinical medical students' experiences of uncertainty stimuli

Nurses' perception of uncertainty in clinical decision-making: A qualitative study

Refining Mishel’s Reconceptualized Uncertainty in Illness Theory: Explaining the Development of Uncertainty in Chronic Illness

Against Conventional Wisdom: when the Public, the Media, and Medical Practice Collide

Systematic Search and Scoping Review of Physicians’ Intolerance of Uncertainty and Medical Decision-Making Uncertainties During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Summary of the Literature and Directions for Future Research

Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process

Modelling Uncertainty in Health Care Systems

Uncertainties of healthcare professionals and informal caregivers in rare diseases: A systematic review

Navigating Uncertainty in Human Social Decision‐making: Consequences and Coping Strategies

What Affects Perceived Trustworthiness of Online Medical Information and Subsequent Treatment Decision Making? Randomized Trials on the Role of Uncertainty and Institutional Cues

Uncertainty management in regulatory and health technology assessment decision-making on drugs: guidance of the HTAi-DIA Working Group