Evaluation of a visual risk communication tool: effects on knowledge and perception of blood transfusion risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective risk communication in transfusion medicine is important for health-care consumers, but understanding the numerical magnitude of risks can be difficult. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of a visual risk communication tool on the knowledge and perception of transfusion risk. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Laypeople were randomly assigned to receive transfusion risk information with either a written or a visual presentation format for communicating and comparing the probabilities of transfusion risks relative to other hazards. Knowledge of transfusion risk was ascertained with a multiple-choice quiz and risk perception was ascertained by psychometric scaling and principal components analysis. RESULTS: Two-hundred subjects were recruited and randomly assigned. Risk communication with both written and visual presentation formats increased knowledge of transfusion risk and decreased the perceived dread and severity of transfusion risk. Neither format changed the perceived knowledge and control of transfusion risk, nor the perceived benefit of transfusion. No differences in knowledge or risk perception outcomes were detected between the groups randomly assigned to written or visual presentation formats. CONCLUSION: Risk communication that incorporates risk comparisons in either written or visual presentation formats can improve knowledge and reduce the perception of transfusion risk in laypeople.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".