BMJ  2006;333:284 (5 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.38884.663102.AE (published 13 July 2006)

Research

Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study

¹ Division of Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB

Abstract

Objective To investigate the accuracy of interpretation of probabilistic screening information by different stakeholder groups and whether presentation as frequencies improves accuracy.

Design Between participants experimental design; participants responded to screening information embedded in a scenario.

Setting Regional maternity service and national conferences and training days.

Participants 43 pregnant women attending their first antenatal appointment in a regional maternity service; 40 companions accompanying the women to their appointments; 42 midwives; 41 obstetricians. Participation rates were 56%, 48%, 89%, and 71% respectively.

Measures Participants estimated the probability that a positive screening test result meant that a baby actually had Down's syndrome on the basis of all the relevant information, which was presented in a scenario. They were randomly assigned to scenarios that presented the information in percentage (n = 86) or frequency (n = 83) format. They also gave basic demographic information and rated their confidence in their estimate.

Results Most responses (86%) were incorrect. Obstetricians gave significantly more correct answers (although still only 43%) than either midwives (0%) or pregnant women (9%). Overall, the proportion of correct answers was higher for presentation as frequencies (24%) than for presentation as percentages (6%), but further analysis showed that this difference occurred only in responses from obstetricians. Many health professionals were confident in their incorrect responses.

Conclusions Most stakeholders in pregnancy screening draw incorrect inferences from probabilistic information, and health professionals need to be aware of the difficulties that both they and their patients have with such information. Moreover, they should be aware that different people make different mistakes and that ways of conveying information that help some people will not help others.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Interpretation of screening test results: Best performers have the most to learn

Mark R Nelson
BMJ 2006 333: 397. [Extract] [Full Text]

Interpretation of screening test results: Scenario does not reflect day to day practice

Mike Divers
BMJ 2006 333: 397. [Extract] [Full Text]

Both screened and screeners misinterpret test results
BMJ 2006 333: 0. [Full Text]

Making decisions about mammography

Paul Taylor
BMJ 2005 330: 915-916. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Five pitfalls in decisions about diagnosis and prescribing

Jill G Klein
BMJ 2005 330: 781-783. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight

Gerd Gigerenzer and Adrian Edwards
BMJ 2003 327: 741-744. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study

Johann Steurer, Joachim E Fischer, Lucas M Bachmann, Michael Koller, and Gerben ter Riet
BMJ 2002 324: 824-826. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures

Adrian Edwards, Glyn Elwyn, and Al Mulley
BMJ 2002 324: 827-830. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Women's understanding of a "normal smear test result": experimental questionnaire based study

Theresa M Marteau, Vicky Senior, and Peter Sasieni
BMJ 2001 322: 526-528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• (2006). Interpreting Probabilistic Test Results Is Difficult for Most. JWatch General 2006: 5-5 [Full text]  
• Nelson, M. R (2006). Interpretation of screening test results: Best performers have the most to learn. BMJ 333: 397-397 [Full text]  
• Divers, M. (2006). Interpretation of screening test results: Scenario does not reflect day to day practice. BMJ 333: 397-397 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Best performers have the most to learn

Mark R Nelson
bmj.com, 20 Jul 2006 [Full text]

So, nurses and doctors are not the same after all

James Penston
bmj.com, 22 Jul 2006 [Full text]

The problem is inappropriate presentation of screening results

Peter M English
bmj.com, 28 Jul 2006 [Full text]

Difficulties persist with interpretation of syphilis test results by doctors.

Niyi Awofeso
bmj.com, 4 Aug 2006 [Full text]

Confusing responses attributable

donald e stanley
bmj.com, 4 Aug 2006 [Full text]

A matter of communication

Lex (ALB) Rutten
bmj.com, 4 Aug 2006 [Full text]

Laboratory results presented with interpretation guidelines are more user-friendly

Russell C Davis
bmj.com, 8 Aug 2006 [Full text]

Bean there done that

Des Spence
bmj.com, 8 Aug 2006 [Full text]

Start Early

Peter Ho
bmj.com, 8 Aug 2006 [Full text]

scenario doesn't reflect day to day practice

mike divers
bmj.com, 8 Aug 2006 [Full text]

Not the participants, but the study and the conclusions…

Eric Lim
bmj.com, 9 Aug 2006 [Full text]

A single candle (handheld) is better than cursing the darkness

Romolo M Dorizzi
bmj.com, 27 Aug 2006 [Full text]

Re: scenario doesn't reflect day to day practice

Richard Smith
bmj.com, 25 Aug 2006 [Full text]

Why make it so difficult?

Ronald F Ingle
bmj.com, 11 Oct 2006 [Full text]