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.

Do mental health professionals really understand probability? Implications for risk assessment and evidence-based practice

“Mental health literacy”: a survey of the public's ability to recognise mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment

Illusion of knowledge in statistics among clinicians: evaluating the alignment between objective accuracy and subjective confidence, an online survey

Making sense of breast cancer risk estimates

Physiotherapy students' and officers' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of mental health

Mental health matters: Evaluating the preparedness of sport psychologists to incorporate within their role

Differential attainment in specialty training recruitment in the UK: an observational analysis of the impact of psychometric testing assessment in Public Health postgraduate selection

Mental health literacy and borderline personality disorder (BPD): what do the public “make” of those with BPD?

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions

Gambling habits and Probability Judgements in a Bayesian Task Environment

Interacting with the public as a risk factor for employee psychological distress

Assessing Digital Risk in Psychiatric Patients: Mixed Methods Study of Psychiatry Trainees’ Experiences, Views, and Understanding

Measurement properties of tools measuring mental health knowledge: a systematic review

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns in suicide risk assessment: Evidence from meta-analyses of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty

Who shows the Unlikelihood Effect – and why?

Patient empowerment in risk management: a mixed-method study to explore mental health professionals’ perspective

UK and Ireland survey of MPharm student and staff experiences of mental health curricula, with a focus on Mental Health First Aid

Mental Health Risk Assessments of Patients, by Nurses Working in Mental Health Settings: A Qualitative Study Using Cognitive Continuum Theory

Mental Health Literacy and Education of Complementary Medicine Practitioners: A Cross-Sectional Study

A Broad Examination of Mental Health Literacy Among College Students in the United States

Algorithmic fairness in precision psychiatry: analysis of prediction models in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis