Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-health) 2.0: from a scoring instrument to a critical appraisal tool

Authors: Reinie G. Gerrits, Niek S. Klazinga, Michael J. van den Berg, Dionne S. Kringos

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Statistics are frequently used in health advocacy to attract attention, but are often misinterpreted. The Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool–Health (FIAT-Health) 1.0 was developed to support systematic assessment of the interpretation of figures on health and health care. This study aimed to test and evaluate the FIAT-Health 1.0 amongst its intended user groups, and further refine the tool based on our results.

Methods

Potential users (N = 32) were asked to assess one publicly reported figure using the FIAT-Health 1.0, and to justify their assessments and share their experience in using the FIAT-Health. In total four figures were assessed. For each figure, an expert on the specific topic (N = 4) provided a comparative assessment. The consistency of the answers was calculated, and answers to the evaluation questions were qualitatively analysed. A qualitative comparative analysis of the justifications for assessment by the experts and potential users was made. Based on the results, a new version of the FIAT-Health was developed and tested by employees (N = 27) of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and approved by the project’s advisory group. In total sixty-three participants contributed.

Results

Potential users using the FIAT-Health 1.0 and experts gave similar justifications for their assessments. The justifications provided by experts aligned with the items of the FIAT-Health. Seventeen out of twenty-six dichotomous questions were consistently answered by the potential users. Numerical assessment questions showed inconsistencies in how potential users responded. In the evaluation, potential users most frequently mentioned that thanks to its structured approach, the FIAT-Health contributed to their awareness of the main characteristics of the figure (n = 14), but they did find the tool complex (n = 11). The FIAT-Health 1.0 was revised from a scoring instrument into a critical appraisal tool: the FIAT-Health 2.0, which was tested and approved by employees of the RIVM and the advisory group.

Conclusion

The tool was refined according to the results of the test and evaluation, transforming the FIAT-Health from a quantitative scoring instrument into an online qualitative appraisal tool that has the potential to aid the better interpretation and public reporting of statistics on health and healthcare.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Young ME, Norman GR, Humphreys KR. Medicine in the Popular Press: The Influence of the Media on Perceptions of Disease. Plos One. 2008;3(10):e3552.CrossRef Young ME, Norman GR, Humphreys KR. Medicine in the Popular Press: The Influence of the Media on Perceptions of Disease. Plos One. 2008;3(10):e3552.CrossRef
2.
3.
go back to reference Zebregs S, van den Putte B, Neijens P, de Graaf A. The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: a meta-analysis. Health Commun. 2015;30(3):282–9.CrossRef Zebregs S, van den Putte B, Neijens P, de Graaf A. The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: a meta-analysis. Health Commun. 2015;30(3):282–9.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Niederdeppe J, Roh S, Dreisbach C. How narrative focus and a statistical map shape health policy support among state legislators. Health Commun. 2016;31(2):242–55.CrossRef Niederdeppe J, Roh S, Dreisbach C. How narrative focus and a statistical map shape health policy support among state legislators. Health Commun. 2016;31(2):242–55.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Moreland-Russell S, Harris JK, Israel K, Schell S, Mohr A. “Anti-smoking data are exaggerated” versus “the data are clear and indisputable”: examining letters to the editor about tobacco. J Health Commun. 2012;17(4):443–59.CrossRef Moreland-Russell S, Harris JK, Israel K, Schell S, Mohr A. “Anti-smoking data are exaggerated” versus “the data are clear and indisputable”: examining letters to the editor about tobacco. J Health Commun. 2012;17(4):443–59.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Frost K, Frank E, Maibach E. Relative risk in the news media: a quantification of misrepresentation. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(5):842–5.CrossRef Frost K, Frank E, Maibach E. Relative risk in the news media: a quantification of misrepresentation. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(5):842–5.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Black N. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ. 2001;323(7307):275–9.CrossRef Black N. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ. 2001;323(7307):275–9.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, Marroun I, Charles P, Mantz J, et al. Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study. Plos Medicine. 2012;9(9):e1001308.CrossRef Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, Marroun I, Charles P, Mantz J, et al. Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study. Plos Medicine. 2012;9(9):e1001308.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Simmerling A, Janich N. Rhetorical functions of a ‘language of uncertainty’ in the mass media. Public Underst Sci. 2015. Simmerling A, Janich N. Rhetorical functions of a ‘language of uncertainty’ in the mass media. Public Underst Sci. 2015.
10.
go back to reference Caulfield T. The commercialisation of medical and scientific reporting. PLoS Med. 2005;1(3):e38.CrossRef Caulfield T. The commercialisation of medical and scientific reporting. PLoS Med. 2005;1(3):e38.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Sato H. Agenda setting for smoking control in Japan, 1945-1990: influence of the mass media on National Health Policy Making. J Health Commun. 2003;8(1):23–40.CrossRef Sato H. Agenda setting for smoking control in Japan, 1945-1990: influence of the mass media on National Health Policy Making. J Health Commun. 2003;8(1):23–40.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Furedi A. The public health implications of the 1995 ‘pill scare’. Hum Reprod Update. 1999;5(6):621–6.CrossRef Furedi A. The public health implications of the 1995 ‘pill scare’. Hum Reprod Update. 1999;5(6):621–6.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter D. Trust in numbers. J. R. Stat. Soc. A. Stat. Soc. 2017;180(4):948–65.CrossRef Spiegelhalter D. Trust in numbers. J. R. Stat. Soc. A. Stat. Soc. 2017;180(4):948–65.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, Moher D, Schulz K. EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet. 2008;371(9619):1149–50.CrossRef Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, Moher D, Schulz K. EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet. 2008;371(9619):1149–50.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Stevens GA, Alkema L, Black RE, Boerma JT, Collins GS, Ezzati M, et al. Guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting: the GATHER statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002056.CrossRef Stevens GA, Alkema L, Black RE, Boerma JT, Collins GS, Ezzati M, et al. Guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting: the GATHER statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002056.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Walker N, Bryce J, Black RE. Interpreting health statistics for policymaking: the story behind the headlines. Lancet. 2007;369(9565):956–63.CrossRef Walker N, Bryce J, Black RE. Interpreting health statistics for policymaking: the story behind the headlines. Lancet. 2007;369(9565):956–63.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dobbins M, Jack S, Thomas H, Kothari A. Public health decision-makers' informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2007;4(3):156–63.CrossRef Dobbins M, Jack S, Thomas H, Kothari A. Public health decision-makers' informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2007;4(3):156–63.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.CrossRef Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference von Roten FC. Do we need a public understanding of statistics? Public Underst Sci. 2006;15(2):243–9.CrossRef von Roten FC. Do we need a public understanding of statistics? Public Underst Sci. 2006;15(2):243–9.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Gerrits RG, Kringos DS, van den Berg MJ, Klazinga NS. Improving interpretation of publically reported statistics on health and healthcare: the figure interpretation assessment tool (FIAT-health). Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):20.CrossRef Gerrits RG, Kringos DS, van den Berg MJ, Klazinga NS. Improving interpretation of publically reported statistics on health and healthcare: the figure interpretation assessment tool (FIAT-health). Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):20.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hampshaw S, Cooke J, Mott L. What is a research derived actionable tool, and what factors should be considered in their development? A Delphi study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):740.CrossRef Hampshaw S, Cooke J, Mott L. What is a research derived actionable tool, and what factors should be considered in their development? A Delphi study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):740.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference W.E. Hooftman GMJM, B. Janssen, E.M.M. de Vroome, S.N.J. van den Bossche. NATIONALE ENQUÊTE ARBEIDSOMSTANDIGHEDEN 2014 Methodologie en globale resultaten. Leiden; 2015. W.E. Hooftman GMJM, B. Janssen, E.M.M. de Vroome, S.N.J. van den Bossche. NATIONALE ENQUÊTE ARBEIDSOMSTANDIGHEDEN 2014 Methodologie en globale resultaten. Leiden; 2015.
23.
go back to reference Arem H, Moore SC, Patel A, Hartge P. Berrington de Gonzalez a, Visvanathan K, et al. leisure time physical activity and mortality: a detailed pooled analysis of the dose-response relationship. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(6):959–67.CrossRef Arem H, Moore SC, Patel A, Hartge P. Berrington de Gonzalez a, Visvanathan K, et al. leisure time physical activity and mortality: a detailed pooled analysis of the dose-response relationship. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(6):959–67.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Maastricht University R, Trimbos Instituut. Social cost-benefit analysis of tobacco control policies in the Netherlands. Maastricht; 2016. Maastricht University R, Trimbos Instituut. Social cost-benefit analysis of tobacco control policies in the Netherlands. Maastricht; 2016.
25.
go back to reference Banerjee S. The use of antipsychotic medication for people with dementia: time for action; 2009. Banerjee S. The use of antipsychotic medication for people with dementia: time for action; 2009.
27.
go back to reference Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRef Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica. 2012;22(3):276–82.CrossRef McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica. 2012;22(3):276–82.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Hayes KF, Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas. 2007;1(1):77–89.CrossRef Hayes KF, Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas. 2007;1(1):77–89.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:82.CrossRef Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments) checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:82.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Pieper D, Jacobs A, Weikert B, Fishta A, Wegewitz U. Inter-rater reliability of AMSTAR is dependent on the pair of reviewers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:98.CrossRef Pieper D, Jacobs A, Weikert B, Fishta A, Wegewitz U. Inter-rater reliability of AMSTAR is dependent on the pair of reviewers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:98.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Han S, Olonisakin TF, Pribis JP, Zupetic J, Yoon JH, Holleran KM, et al. A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0183591.CrossRef Han S, Olonisakin TF, Pribis JP, Zupetic J, Yoon JH, Holleran KM, et al. A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0183591.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Huff D. How to lie with statistics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 1954. Huff D. How to lie with statistics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 1954.
36.
go back to reference Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen (WMO). BWBR0009408. Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen (WMO). BWBR0009408.
Metadata
Title
Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-health) 2.0: from a scoring instrument to a critical appraisal tool
Authors
Reinie G. Gerrits
Niek S. Klazinga
Michael J. van den Berg
Dionne S. Kringos
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0797-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue