% 0期刊文章% @ 1438 - 8871 V %我Gunther Eysenbach % 13% 3% N P e54 % T风险估计在线风险计算器更可信和召回更好表达为整数% Witteman时,冬青O % Zikmund-Fisher,布莱恩J %水域,埃里卡% Gavaruzzi,特蕾莎修女%法格林,安琪拉% +项目健康沟通和决策、生物伦理学中心和社会科学在医学、密歇根大学300名北英格尔斯建筑7 c27,安阿伯市,48109 - 5429,美国1 734 615 2296, hollywit@med.umich.edu %K风险%K风险评估%K沟通%K风险沟通%K感知%K风险感知%K计算器，可编程%K风险计算器%K互联网%K在线%D 2011 %7 07.09.2011 %9原创论文%J J医学互联网Res %G英文%X背景:在线风险计算器在其风险估计中提供不同级别的精度。人们对数字有不同的理解，这取决于数字的呈现方式，我们不知道显示的小数点位数会如何影响对风险估计的看法。目的:我们的研究目的是确定在线风险计算器提供的风险估计的准确性(即小数的数量)是否会影响用户对(1)估计的可信度，(2)风险大小(即，他们感觉风险是大还是小)和(3)在短暂延迟后他们能回忆起风险估计的程度的评级。方法:我们开发了两个模拟风险计算器网站，提供参与者一生患肾癌风险的假设百分比估计。参与者被随机分配到风险估计值随精度增加而上升(2,2.1,2.13,2.133)或风险估计值随精度增加而下降(2,1.9,1.87,1.867)的条件下。在每一组中，参与者被随机分配到四个数字中的一个作为他们的第一个风险估计，然后得到其余三个数字中的一个作为比较。结果:完成实验的参与者(N = 3422)是一个人口统计学上多样化的在线样本，在年龄、性别和种族方面大致代表了美国成年人口。风险评估中没有小数点的参与者给出了最高的可信度评级(F3,3384 = 2.94, P = .03)和最低的风险量级评级(F3,3384 = 4.70, P = .003)。与小数点后的估计相比，整数估计的可信度高7%-10%的参与者(χ23 =17.8, P < .001)。 When comparing two risk estimates with different levels of precision, large majorities of participants reported that the numbers seemed equivalent across all measures. Both exact and approximate recall were highest for estimates with zero decimals. Odds ratios (OR) for correct approximate recall (defined as being within 50% of the original estimate) were, for one decimal place, OR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.49–0.86), for two decimal places, OR = 0.70 (95% CI 0.53–0.94), and for three decimal places, 0.61 (95% CI 0.45–0.81). Exact recall showed a similar pattern, with larger effects. Conclusions: There are subtle but measurable differences in how people interpret risk estimates of varying precision. Adding decimal places in risk calculators offers little to no benefit and some cost. Rounding to the nearest integer is likely preferable for communicating risk estimates via risk calculators so that they might be remembered correctly and judged as believable. %M 21908265 %R 10.2196/jmir.1656 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2011/3/e54/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1656 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21908265

map