How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information

Olga C Damman, Nina M M Bogaerts, Maaike J van den Haak, Danielle R M Timmermans

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Disease risk calculators are increasingly web-based, but previous studies have shown that risk information often poses problems for lay users.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how lay people understand the result derived from an online cardiometabolic risk calculator.

DESIGN: A qualitative study was performed, using the risk calculator in the Dutch National Prevention Program for cardiometabolic diseases. The study consisted of three parts: (i) attention: completion of the risk calculator while an eye tracker registered eye movements; (ii) recall: completion of a recall task; and (iii) interpretation: participation in a semi-structured interview.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited people from the target population through an advertisement in a local newspaper; 16 people participated in the study, which took place in our university laboratory.

RESULTS: Eye-tracking data showed that participants looked most extensively at numerical risk information. Percentages were recalled well, whereas natural frequencies and verbal labels were remembered less well. Five qualitative themes were derived from the interview data: (i) numerical information does not really sink in; (ii) the verbal categorical label made no real impact on people; (iii) people relied heavily on existing knowledge and beliefs; (iv) people zoomed in on risk factors, especially family history of diseases; and (v) people often compared their situation to that of their peers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although people paid attention to and recalled the risk information to a certain extent, they seemed to have difficulty in properly using this information for interpreting their risk.

Original languageEnglish
Article number20 (5)
Pages (from-to)973-983
Number of pages10
JournalHealth Expectations
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2017

Fingerprint

Interviews
Newspapers
Health Services Needs and Demand
Eye Movements

Keywords

  • risk information
  • user research

Cite this

Damman, Olga C ; Bogaerts, Nina M M ; van den Haak, Maaike J ; Timmermans, Danielle R M. / How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information. In: Health Expectations. 2017 ; pp. 973-983.
@article{f467dbd1d9324f83b793251e3f156118,
title = "How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Disease risk calculators are increasingly web-based, but previous studies have shown that risk information often poses problems for lay users.OBJECTIVE: To examine how lay people understand the result derived from an online cardiometabolic risk calculator.DESIGN: A qualitative study was performed, using the risk calculator in the Dutch National Prevention Program for cardiometabolic diseases. The study consisted of three parts: (i) attention: completion of the risk calculator while an eye tracker registered eye movements; (ii) recall: completion of a recall task; and (iii) interpretation: participation in a semi-structured interview.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited people from the target population through an advertisement in a local newspaper; 16 people participated in the study, which took place in our university laboratory.RESULTS: Eye-tracking data showed that participants looked most extensively at numerical risk information. Percentages were recalled well, whereas natural frequencies and verbal labels were remembered less well. Five qualitative themes were derived from the interview data: (i) numerical information does not really sink in; (ii) the verbal categorical label made no real impact on people; (iii) people relied heavily on existing knowledge and beliefs; (iv) people zoomed in on risk factors, especially family history of diseases; and (v) people often compared their situation to that of their peers.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although people paid attention to and recalled the risk information to a certain extent, they seemed to have difficulty in properly using this information for interpreting their risk.",
keywords = "risk information, user research",
author = "Damman, {Olga C} and Bogaerts, {Nina M M} and {van den Haak}, {Maaike J} and Timmermans, {Danielle R M}",
note = "{\circledC} 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/hex.12538",
language = "English",
pages = "973--983",
journal = "Health Expectations",
issn = "1369-6513",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information. / Damman, Olga C; Bogaerts, Nina M M; van den Haak, Maaike J; Timmermans, Danielle R M.

In: Health Expectations, 10.2017, p. 973-983.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information

AU - Damman, Olga C

AU - Bogaerts, Nina M M

AU - van den Haak, Maaike J

AU - Timmermans, Danielle R M

N1 - © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2017/10

Y1 - 2017/10

N2 - BACKGROUND: Disease risk calculators are increasingly web-based, but previous studies have shown that risk information often poses problems for lay users.OBJECTIVE: To examine how lay people understand the result derived from an online cardiometabolic risk calculator.DESIGN: A qualitative study was performed, using the risk calculator in the Dutch National Prevention Program for cardiometabolic diseases. The study consisted of three parts: (i) attention: completion of the risk calculator while an eye tracker registered eye movements; (ii) recall: completion of a recall task; and (iii) interpretation: participation in a semi-structured interview.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited people from the target population through an advertisement in a local newspaper; 16 people participated in the study, which took place in our university laboratory.RESULTS: Eye-tracking data showed that participants looked most extensively at numerical risk information. Percentages were recalled well, whereas natural frequencies and verbal labels were remembered less well. Five qualitative themes were derived from the interview data: (i) numerical information does not really sink in; (ii) the verbal categorical label made no real impact on people; (iii) people relied heavily on existing knowledge and beliefs; (iv) people zoomed in on risk factors, especially family history of diseases; and (v) people often compared their situation to that of their peers.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although people paid attention to and recalled the risk information to a certain extent, they seemed to have difficulty in properly using this information for interpreting their risk.

AB - BACKGROUND: Disease risk calculators are increasingly web-based, but previous studies have shown that risk information often poses problems for lay users.OBJECTIVE: To examine how lay people understand the result derived from an online cardiometabolic risk calculator.DESIGN: A qualitative study was performed, using the risk calculator in the Dutch National Prevention Program for cardiometabolic diseases. The study consisted of three parts: (i) attention: completion of the risk calculator while an eye tracker registered eye movements; (ii) recall: completion of a recall task; and (iii) interpretation: participation in a semi-structured interview.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited people from the target population through an advertisement in a local newspaper; 16 people participated in the study, which took place in our university laboratory.RESULTS: Eye-tracking data showed that participants looked most extensively at numerical risk information. Percentages were recalled well, whereas natural frequencies and verbal labels were remembered less well. Five qualitative themes were derived from the interview data: (i) numerical information does not really sink in; (ii) the verbal categorical label made no real impact on people; (iii) people relied heavily on existing knowledge and beliefs; (iv) people zoomed in on risk factors, especially family history of diseases; and (v) people often compared their situation to that of their peers.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although people paid attention to and recalled the risk information to a certain extent, they seemed to have difficulty in properly using this information for interpreting their risk.

KW - risk information

KW - user research

U2 - 10.1111/hex.12538

DO - 10.1111/hex.12538

M3 - Article

SP - 973

EP - 983

JO - Health Expectations

JF - Health Expectations

SN - 1369-6513

M1 - 20 (5)

ER -