Risk Estimates From an Online Risk Calculator Are More Believable and Recalled Better When Expressed as Integers

Journals

1. Damman O, Bogaerts N, van Dongen D, Timmermans D. Barriers in using cardiometabolic risk information among consumers with low health literacy. British Journal of Health Psychology 2016;21(1):135 View
2. Zikmund-Fisher B. The Right Tool Is What They Need, Not What We Have. Medical Care Research and Review 2013;70(1_suppl):37S View
3. Gavaruzzi T, Tasso A, Franiuk M, Varesco L, Lotto L. Letter to the Editor: Response to Cox (2018). Journal of Genetic Counseling 2018;27(5):1314 View
4. Peters E, Kunreuther H, Sagara N, Slovic P, Schley D. Protective Measures, Personal Experience, and the Affective Psychology of Time. Risk Analysis 2012;32(12):2084 View
5. Killam H, Han P. Presenting Health Statistics on the Web. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care 2013;2(1):43 View
6. Bonner C, Jansen J, Newell B, Irwig L, Glasziou P, Doust J, Dhillon H, McCaffery K. I Don't Believe It, But I'd Better Do Something About It: Patient Experiences of Online Heart Age Risk Calculators. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2014;16(5):e120 View
7. Damman O, Bogaerts N, van den Haak M, Timmermans D. How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information. Health Expectations 2017;20(5):973 View
8. Wright D, Lozano P, Dawson-Hahn E, Christakis D, Haaland W, Basu A. Parental optimism about childhood obesity-related disease risks. International Journal of Obesity 2017;41(10):1467 View
9. Zikmund-Fisher B, Witteman H, Dickson M, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Kahn V, Exe N, Valerio M, Holtzman L, Scherer L, Fagerlin A. Blocks, Ovals, or People? Icon Type Affects Risk Perceptions and Recall of Pictographs. Medical Decision Making 2014;34(4):443 View
10. Adonis M, Díaz J, Miranda V, Chahuan M, Zambrano A, Benitez H, Campos M, Avaria P, Urzúa U, Marín P, Gohurdett M, Cisterna Y, Gil L. Biomarkers for screening of lung cancer and pre-neoplastic lesions in a high risk Chilean population. Biological Research 2014;47(1):62 View
11. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Crump R. Decision Support for Patients. Medical Care Research and Review 2013;70(1_suppl):50S View
12. Gavaruzzi T, Tasso A, Franiuk M, Varesco L, Lotto L. A Psychological Perspective on Factors Predicting Prophylactic Salpingo‐Oophorectomy in a Sample of Italian Women from the General Population. Results from a Hypothetical Study in the Context of BRCA Mutations. Journal of Genetic Counseling 2017;26(5):1144 View
13. Janssen E, Ruiter R, Waters E. Combining risk communication strategies to simultaneously convey the risks of four diseases associated with physical inactivity to socio-demographically diverse populations. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 2018;41(3):318 View
14. Jenkins S, Harris A, Lark R. When unlikely outcomes occur: the role of communication format in maintaining communicator credibility. Journal of Risk Research 2019;22(5):537 View
15. Waters E, Taber J, McQueen A, Housten A, Studts J, Scherer L. Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2020;29(12):2389 View
16. Vromans R, Pauws S, Bol N, van de Poll-Franse L, Krahmer E. Communicating tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects: Only words or also numbers?. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2020;20(1) View
17. Gómez-Ramírez O, Thomson K, Salway T, Haag D, Falasinnu T, Grennan T, Grace D, Gilbert M. “Mini Dial-A-Nurses” and “Good Brands“: What Are the Desirable Features of Online HIV/STI Risk Calculators?. AIDS Education and Prevention 2020;32(6):528 View
18. Gunn C, Maschke A, Paasche-Orlow M, Housten A, Kressin N, Schonberg M, Battaglia T. Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy. MDM Policy & Practice 2021;6(2):238146832110332 View
19. Thompson C, Taber J, Fitzsimmons C, Sidney P. Math predictors of numeric health and non-health decision-making problems. Journal of Numerical Cognition 2021;7(2):221 View
20. Huilgol Y, Keane H, Shieh Y, Hiatt R, Tice J, Madlensky L, Sabacan L, Fiscalini A, Ziv E, Acerbi I, Che M, Anton-Culver H, Borowsky A, Hunt S, Naeim A, Parker B, van ‘T Veer L, Esserman L. Elevated risk thresholds predict endocrine risk-reducing medication use in the Athena screening registry. npj Breast Cancer 2021;7(1) View
21. Krull S, Boecker L, Loschelder D. The Power and Peril of Precise vs. Round Health Message Interventions to Increase Stair Use. Frontiers in Psychology 2021;12 View
22. Paige S, Wilczewski H, Casale T, Bunnell B. Using a computer-tailored COPD screening assessment to promote advice-seeking behaviors. World Allergy Organization Journal 2021;14(11):100603 View
23. Vromans R, Tillier C, Pauws S, van der Poel H, van de Poll-Franse L, Krahmer E. Communication, perception, and use of personalized side-effect risks in prostate cancer treatment-decision making: An observational and interview study. Patient Education and Counseling 2022;105(8):2731 View
24. Ancker J, Benda N, Zikmund-Fisher B. Do you want to promote recall, perceptions, or behavior? The best data visualization depends on the communication goal. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2024;31(2):525 View
25. Auger N, Brousseau É, Fraser W. Reply: when the clinical point gets lost in the decimal point. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2024;230(4):e65 View

Books/Policy Documents

1. Waters E, Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B. Handbook of Health Decision Science. View
2. Zikmund-Fisher B, Mayman G, Fagerlin A. Numerical Reasoning in Judgments and Decision Making about Health. View