The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
This review describes recent experimental and focus group research on graphics as a method of communication about quantitative health risks. Some of the studies discussed in this review assessed effect of graphs on quantitative reasoning, others assessed effects on behavior or behavioral intentions, and still others assessed viewers' likes and dislikes. Graphical features that improve the accuracy of quantitative reasoning appear to differ from the features most likely to alter behavior or intentions. For example, graphs that make part-to-whole relationships available visually may help people attend to the relationship between the numerator (the number of people affected by a hazard) and the denominator (the entire population at risk), whereas graphs that show only the numerator appear to inflate the perceived risk and may induce risk-averse behavior. Viewers often preferred design features such as visual simplicity and familiarity that were not associated with accurate quantitative judgments. Communicators should not assume that all graphics are more intuitive than text; many of the studies found that patients' interpretations of the graphics were dependent upon expertise or instruction. Potentially useful directions for continuing research include interactions with educational level and numeracy and successful ways to communicate uncertainty about risk.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Kushner (2021) · doi:10.12788/jfp · Cited by 3,799
Cosmides, L. (1996) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8 · Cited by 1,293
Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods.
Windschitl, P. D., & Wells, G. L. (1996) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.2.4.343 · Cited by 326
Displaying proportions and percentages
Spence, I., & Lewandowsky, S. (1991) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2350050106 · Cited by 162
Cited by
Lipkus, I. M. (2007) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x07307271 · Cited by 771
Visualizing Uncertainty About the Future
Spiegelhalter, D., Pearson, M., & Short, I. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1191181 · Cited by 682
A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory
Reyna, V. F. (2008) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x08327066 · Cited by 602
Helping Patients Decide: Ten Steps to Better Risk Communication
Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Ubel, P. A. (2011) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djr318 · Cited by 573
Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science
van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. J., Mitchell, J., Galvao, A. B., Zaval, L., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2019) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.181870 · Cited by 456
Metadata
- Authors
- Ancker, J. S., Senathirajah, Y., Kukafka, R., & Starren, J. B.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-11-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 608-618
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- OpenAlex
- W2102661682
- Cited by
- 548
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 14.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m2115
- The paper
- Ancker, J. S., Senathirajah, Y., Kukafka, R., & Starren, J. B. (2006). Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m2115
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.