CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics

Garcia-Retamero, Rocio, Cokely, Edward T.·2017·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
DOI 10.1177/0018720817690634
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Effective risk communication is essential for informed decision making. Unfortunately, many people struggle to understand typical risk communications because they lack essential decision-making skills. Objective: The aim of this study was to review the literature on the effect of numeracy on risk literacy, decision making, and health outcomes, and to evaluate the benefits of visual aids in risk communication. Method: We present a conceptual framework describing the influence of numeracy on risk literacy, decision making, and health outcomes, followed by a systematic review of the benefits of visual aids in risk communication for people with different levels of numeracy and graph literacy. The systematic review covers scientific research published between January 1995 and April 2016, drawn from the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, Medline, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were investigation of the effect of numeracy and/or graph literacy, and investigation of the effect of visual aids or comparison of their effect with that of numerical information. Thirty-six publications met the criteria, providing data on 27,885 diverse participants from 60 countries. Results: Transparent visual aids robustly improved risk understanding in diverse individuals by encouraging thorough deliberation, enhancing cognitive self-assessment, and reducing conceptual biases in memory. Improvements in risk understanding consistently produced beneficial changes in attitudes, behavioral intentions, trust, and healthy behaviors. Visual aids were found to be particularly beneficial for vulnerable and less skilled individuals. Conclusion: Well-designed visual aids tend to be highly effective tools for improving informed decision making among diverse decision makers. We identify five categories of practical, evidence-based guidelines for heuristic evaluation and design of effective visual aids.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018720817690634

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 172

  1. 10.2215/CJN.08121109 · DOI
  2. 10.1197/jamia.M2464 · DOI
  3. 10.1197/jamia.M2115 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/0272989X10369006 · DOI
  5. 10.1177/0272989X10364847 · DOI
  6. 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821a370f · DOI
  7. 10.1017/CBO9781139644358 · DOI
  8. 10.1017/CBO9781139644358.004 · DOI
  9. 10.1080/02770900600925585 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.01.003 · DOI
  11. 10.2308/jis.2002.16.2.183 · DOI
  12. 10.1080/00014788.1992.9729446 · DOI
  13. 10.1108/09513570210440595 · DOI
  14. 10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.027 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/13669877.2013.788055 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1200/JCO.2005.12.514 · DOI
  18. 10.1037/1076-898X.4.2.75 · DOI
  19. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00006 · DOI
  20. 10.2337/dc09-0563 · DOI
  21. 10.1177/0047237915604062 · DOI
  22. Cokely E. T., Feltz A., Ghazal S., Allan J. N., Petrova D., Garcia-Retamero R. (in press). Decision making skill: From intelligence to numeracy and expertise. In Ericsson K. A., Hoffman R. R., Kozbelt A., Williams A. M. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Cokely E. T., 2012, Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 25, 10.1017/S1930297500001819 · DOI
  24. 10.1017/CBO9781139644358.002 · DOI
  25. 10.1017/S193029750000067X · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.3758/BF03213914 · DOI
  27. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20703.x · DOI
  28. 10.1037/a0016942 · DOI
  29. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.20801.x · DOI
  30. 10.1177/01461672952110009 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.pec.2004.06.012 · DOI
  32. Edward T., 2001, The visual display of quantitative information
  33. 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.827 · DOI
  34. 10.1001/jama.282.6.527 · DOI
  35. 10.1097/00000441-200408000-00004 · DOI
  36. 10.5993/AJHB.31.s1.7 · DOI
  37. 10.1177/0272989X05278931 · DOI
  38. 10.1177/0272989X07304449 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1177/0272989X06297101 · DOI
  40. 10.1177/0272989X0002000208 · DOI
  41. Fischhoff B., 2012, Communicating risks and benefits: An evidence based user’s guide
  42. 10.1037/a0024850 · DOI
  43. 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.481 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.02.008 · DOI
  45. 10.1037/a0022723 · DOI
  46. 10.1177/0272989X10373805 · DOI
  47. 10.1002/acp.2866 · DOI
  48. 10.1037/a0014474 · DOI
  49. 10.1177/0272989X15578126 · DOI
  50. 10.1037/a0023677 · DOI
  51. 10.1177/0963721413491570 · DOI
  52. 10.1002/bdm.1797 · DOI
  53. 10.1017/CBO9781139644358.008 · DOI
  54. 10.2174/1570162X13666150511143034 · DOI
  55. 10.1080/00224499.2013.806647 · DOI
  56. Garcia-Retamero R., 2016, Promoting shared medical decision making in doctors and their patients
  57. Garcia-Retamero R., 2016, Comparing risk literacy in 30 countries: New results from Berlin numeracy test
  58. 10.1177/0272989X16655334 · DOI · Paper page
  59. *Garcia-Retamero R., 2015, Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 932
  60. 10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.013 · DOI
  61. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00670.x · DOI
  62. 10.1080/17470218.2012.727836 · DOI
  63. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.160234 · DOI
  64. 10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9 · DOI
  65. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.031 · DOI
  66. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.027 · DOI
  67. 10.1007/978-1-4614-4358-2 · DOI
  68. 10.1177/0272989X10369000 · DOI
  69. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.034 · DOI
  70. 10.14349/rlp.v45i2.1071 · DOI
  71. Garcia-Retamero R., The Oxford encyclopedia of health and risk message design and processing
  72. 10.1037/hea0000061 · DOI
  73. 10.1016/j.pec.2011.05.006 · DOI
  74. Ghazal S., 2014, Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 15, 10.1017/S1930297500004952 · DOI
  75. 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · DOI · Paper page
  76. 10.1518/001872098779480640 · DOI
  77. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.012 · DOI
  78. 10.1370/afm.795 · DOI
  79. 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00530.x · DOI
  80. 10.1177/0272989X14551639 · DOI
  81. 10.1037/a0019881 · DOI
  82. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023 · DOI
  83. *Hess R., 2011, Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 263, 10.1017/S1930297500001467 · DOI
  84. 10.1080/13669877.2010.488745 · DOI
  85. 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.019 · DOI
  86. 10.1177/1077558707301630 · DOI
  87. 10.1093/intqhc/mzr072 · DOI
  88. 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00050-1 · DOI
  89. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.05.010 · DOI
  90. 10.3758/s13414-011-0155-1 · DOI
  91. 10.1038/oby.2008.294 · DOI
  92. 10.1542/peds.2011-0597 · DOI
  93. 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144118 · DOI
  94. 10.1177/0272989X09333122 · DOI
  95. 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.008 · DOI
  96. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311846.001.0001 · DOI
  97. Kutner M., 2006, The health literacy of America’s adults: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy
  98. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00534.x · DOI
  99. 10.1177/0272989X07307271 · DOI
  100. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024191 · DOI
  101. 10.1177/0272989X0102100105 · DOI
  102. 10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000149 · DOI
  103. 10.1016/S1553-7250(07)33072-9 · DOI
  104. 10.1080/10810730.2011.604704 · DOI
  105. 10.1136/jech.2011.136341 · DOI
  106. 10.1080/13698575.2014.884544 · DOI
  107. 10.1177/0272989X11424926 · DOI
  108. 10.1177/0272989X09342279 · DOI
  109. 10.1109/TVCG.2012.199 · DOI
  110. Moles A. A., 1966, Information theory and esthetic perception
  111. 10.1002/acp.1068 · DOI
  112. 10.1016/j.pec.2015.09.009 · DOI
  113. 10.1007/s12160-008-9037-8 · DOI
  114. 10.1002/bdm.1891 · DOI
  115. 10.1002/bdm.751 · DOI
  116. 10.1037/xap0000045 · DOI
  117. 10.1080/13875868.2012.659302 · DOI
  118. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012, PISA 2009 technical report
  119. 10.1080/10810730.2010.499980 · DOI
  120. 10.1177/0272989X15576487 · DOI
  121. 10.5993/AJHB.31.s1.4 · DOI
  122. 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.745 · DOI
  123. 10.1177/0963721411429960 · DOI
  124. 10.1037/pspp0000019 · DOI
  125. 10.1177/10775587070640020301 · DOI
  126. 10.1017/S1930297500000012 · DOI
  127. Peters E., 2014, Health literacy and numeracy: Workshop summary, 1
  128. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x · DOI · Paper page
  129. Petrova D., Annals of Behavioral Medicine
  130. 10.1037/xap0000086 · DOI
  131. 10.1177/0272989X15587676 · DOI
  132. 10.1002/bdm.1803 · DOI
  133. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.036 · DOI
  134. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.006 · DOI
  135. 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004 · DOI
  136. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00275.x · DOI
  137. 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.011 · DOI · Paper page
  138. 10.1037/a0017327 · DOI
  139. 10.1080/10810730.2013.829137 · DOI
  140. Roter D. L., 2005, Understanding health literacy: Implications for medicine and public health, 87
  141. 10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.026 · DOI
  142. 10.1177/0272989X12447239 · DOI
  143. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00624.x · DOI
  144. 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003 · DOI
  145. 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01066.x · DOI
  146. 10.1023/A:1013180410169 · DOI · Paper page
  147. Sharit J., 2014, Journal of Usability Studies, 9, 173
  148. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00684.x · DOI
  149. 10.1111/1467-9280.02438 · DOI
  150. 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018594 · DOI
  151. 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00003-7 · DOI
  152. 10.1037/1076-898X.3.4.243 · DOI
  153. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.04.040 · DOI
  154. 10.1080/10810730.2010.492560 · DOI
  155. 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181e8570a · DOI
  156. Trevena L., 2012, Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s background document
  157. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.x · DOI
  158. 10.1093/ntr/ntr197 · DOI
  159. 10.1177/1090198108322819 · DOI
  160. 10.1089/apc.2009.0300 · DOI
  161. 10.1007/s10461-008-9425-x · DOI
  162. 10.1037/1076-898X.13.1.11 · DOI
  163. 10.1002/cncr.11483 · DOI
  164. 10.1002/bdm.1751 · DOI
  165. 10.1177/1071181312561345 · DOI
  166. 10.2196/jmir.1665 · DOI
  167. 10.1177/0272989X10364244 · DOI
  168. 10.1017/CBO9781139644358.005 · DOI
  169. 10.1177/0272989X07303824 · DOI · Paper page
  170. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.010 · DOI
  171. 10.1177/0272989X13511706 · DOI
  172. 10.2196/jmir.2030 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 298

Metadata

Authors
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Granada, Granada, Spain
  • University of Oklahoma, Norman
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-02-13
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
582-627
ISSN
  • 0018-7208
  • 1547-8181
DOI
10.1177/0018720817690634
Cited by
298
References
5
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (SES-1253263)
  • Max Planck Society
  • Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making
  • Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia ((PSI2008-02019))
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad ((PSI2011-22954), (PSI2014-51842-R))

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0018720817690634
The paper
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2017). Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817690634