SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    O'Connor AM,Stacey D,Entwistle SD, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003: CD001431.
  • 2
    Peele PB,Siminoff LA,Xu Y,Ravdin PM. Decreased use of adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with individualized risk information. Med Decis Making. 2005; 25: 301-307.
  • 3
    Siminoff LA,Gordon NH,Silverman P,Budd T,Ravdin PM. A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2006; 15: 1001-0103.
  • 4
    Ravdin PM,Siminoff LA,Davis GJ, et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 980-991.
  • 5
    Fagerlin A,Wang C,Ubel PA. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making. 2005; 25: 398-405.
  • 6
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ,Ubel PA,Smith DM, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 73: 209214.
  • 7
    Zikmund-Fisher B,Fagerlin A,Roberts TR,Derry HA,Ubel PA. Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk occurrence. J Health Commun. 2008; 13: 107-124.
  • 8
    Feldman-Stewart D,Brundage MD,Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: Judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27: 34-43.
  • 9
    Waters EA,Weinstein ND,Colditz GA,Emmons KM. Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007; 13: 11-21.
  • 10
    Price M,Cameron R,Butow P. Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception—accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Patient Educ Couns. 2007; 69: 121-128.
  • 11
    Kosslyn SM. Understanding charts and graphs. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1989; 3: 185-226.
  • 12
    Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 2nd ed. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press; 2001.
  • 13
    Kosslyn SM. Graph Design for the Eye and Mind. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  • 14
    Belkora J,Rugo HS,Moore DH,Hutton D,Esserman L. Risk communication with patients with breast cancer: cautionary notes about printing Adjuvant! estimates. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9: 602-603.
  • 15
    Cleveland WS,McGill R. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science. 1985; 229: 828-833.
  • 16
    Bassili JN,Scott BS. Response latency as a signal to question problems in survey research. Public Opin Q. 1996; 60: 390-399.
  • 17
    Fagerlin A,Zikmund-Fisher BJ,Ubel PA,Jankovic A,Derry H,Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS). Med Decis Making. 2007; 27: 672-680.
  • 18
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ,Smith DM,Ubel PA,Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27: 663-671.
  • 19
    Hollands JG,Spence I. Judging proportions with graphs: the summation model. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1998; 12: 173-190.
  • 20
    Hollands JG,Spence I. Judgments of change and proportion in graphical perception. Hum Factors. 1992; 34: 313-334.
  • 21
    Waters EA,Weinstein ND,Colditz GA,Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun. 2006; 11: 167-182.
  • 22
    Stata Statistical Software, 10 ed. College Station, Texas: Stata Corporation; 2007.
  • 23
    Payne JW,Bettman JR,Johnson EJ. The adaptive decision maker: effort and accuracy in choice. In: HogarthRM, ed. Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1990: 129-153.
  • 24
    Luce MF,Bettman JR,Payne JW. Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997; 23: 384-405.
  • 25
    Iyengar SS,Lepper MR. When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 79: 995-1006.
  • 26
    Carpenter PA,Shah P. A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1998; 4: 75-100.
  • 27
    Wise K,Pepple K. The effect of available choice on the cognitive processing of pictures. Comput Human Behav. 2008; 24: 388-402.
  • 28
    Lacey HP,Smith DM,Ubel PA. Hope I die before I get old: mispredicting happiness across the lifespan. J Happiness Stud. 2006; 7: 167-182.
  • 29
    Keller KL,Staelin R. Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision effectiveness. J Consum Res. 1987; 14: 200-213.
  • 30
    Schwartz B. The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. 1st ed. New York: Harper Collins; 2004.