title: The effect of alternative graphical displays used to present the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat on decisions about whether to seek treatment: a randomized trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  We conducted an Internet-based randomized trial comparing four graphical displays of the benefits of antibiotics for people with sore throat who must decide whether to go to the doctor to seek treatment. Our objective was to determine which display resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values.
  
  
  RESULTS
  This was the first of a series of televised trials undertaken in cooperation with the Norwegian Broadcasting Company. We recruited adult volunteers in Norway through a nationally televised weekly health program. Participants went to our Web site and rated the relative importance of the consequences of treatment using visual analogue scales (VAS). They viewed the graphical display (or no information) to which they were randomized and were asked to decide whether to go to the doctor for an antibiotic prescription. We compared four presentations: face icons (happy/sad) or a bar graph showing the proportion of people with symptoms on day three with and without treatment, a bar graph of the average duration of symptoms, and a bar graph of proportion with symptoms on both days three and seven. Before completing the study, all participants were shown all the displays and detailed patient information about the treatment of sore throat and were asked to decide again. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS scores for the undesirable consequences of antibiotics from the VAS score for the benefit of symptom relief. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 1,760 participants completed the study. There were statistically significant differences in the likelihood of choosing to go to the doctor in relation to different values (RIS). Of the four presentations, the bar graph of duration of symptoms resulted in decisions that were most consistent with the more fully informed second decision. Most participants also preferred this presentation (38%) and found it easiest to understand (37%). Participants shown the other three presentations were more likely to decide to go to the doctor based on their first decision than everyone based on the second decision. Participants preferred the graph using faces the least (14.4%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  For decisions about going to the doctor to get antibiotics for sore throat, treatment effects presented by a bar graph showing the duration of symptoms helped people make decisions more consistent with their values than treatment effects presented as graphical displays of proportions of people with sore throat following treatment.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  ISRCTN58507086.
authors.affiliation: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. cheryl.carling@kunnskapssenteret.no
authors.forename: Cheryl L L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Carling
authors.forename: Doris Tove
authors.initials: DT
authors.lastname: Kristoffersen
authors.forename: Signe
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Flottorp
authors.forename: Atle
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Fretheim
authors.forename: Andrew D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Oxman
authors.forename: Holger J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Schünemann
authors.forename: Elie A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Akl
authors.forename: Jeph
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Herrin
authors.forename: Thomas D
authors.initials: TD
authors.lastname: MacKenzie
authors.forename: Victor M
authors.initials: VM
authors.lastname: Montori
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010612:Pharyngitis / Q000188:drug therapy*; D018570:Risk Assessment; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents
references.citation: J Health Commun. 2001 Jan-Mar;6(1):61-82
references.pmid: 11317424
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Nov;18(11):948-59
references.pmid: 14687282
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2000 Apr-Jun;20(2):228-38
references.pmid: 10772360
references.citation: Ann Fam Med. 2007 Sep-Oct;5(5):436-43
references.pmid: 17893386
references.citation: BMJ. 2002 Aug 17;325(7360):367
references.pmid: 12183309
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Oct;14(10):633-42
references.pmid: 10571710
references.citation: BMJ. 1999 Jun 5;318(7197):1527-31
references.pmid: 10356010
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2009 Aug;6(8):e1000134
references.pmid: 19707575
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Nov;63(3):336-49
references.pmid: 16860964
references.citation: PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3693
references.pmid: 19030110
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Jul-Dec;Suppl Web Exclusives:W96-114
references.pmid: 12703563
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD000023
references.pmid: 17054126
references.citation: JAMA. 2004 May 19;291(19):2359-66
references.pmid: 15150208
references.citation: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2000 Jun 10;120(15):1754-60
references.pmid: 10904662
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Jul;50(3):285-90
references.pmid: 12900101
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001;1:2
references.pmid: 11545684
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 1990 Sep-Oct;5(5):402-5
references.pmid: 2231035
references.citation: BMC Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb 4;3(1):3
references.pmid: 12622873
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):736-40
references.pmid: 14512487
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):149-63
references.pmid: 10854471
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 May 10;336(7652):1049-51
references.pmid: 18467413