Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Improving interpretation of publically reported statistics on health and healthcare: the Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool (FIAT-Health)

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

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public are confronted daily with figures on health and healthcare through public reporting in newspapers, webpages and press releases. However, information on the key characteristics of these figures necessary for their correct interpretation is often not adequately communicated, which can lead to misinterpretation and misinformed decision-making. The objective of this research was to map the key characteristics relevant to the interpretation of figures on health and healthcare, and to develop a Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-Health) through which figures on health and healthcare can be systematically assessed, allowing for a better interpretation of these figures.

Methods

The abovementioned key characteristics of figures on health and healthcare were identified through systematic expert consultations in the Netherlands on four topic categories of figures, namely morbidity, healthcare expenditure, healthcare outcomes and lifestyle. The identified characteristics were used as a frame for the development of the FIAT-Health. Development of the tool and its content was supported and validated through regular review by a sounding board of potential users.

Results

Identified characteristics relevant for the interpretation of figures in the four categories relate to the figures’ origin, credibility, expression, subject matter, population and geographical focus, time period, and underlying data collection methods. The characteristics were translated into a set of 13 dichotomous and 4-point Likert scale questions constituting the FIAT-Health, and two final assessment statements. Users of the FIAT-Health were provided with a summary overview of their answers to support a final assessment of the correctness of a figure and the appropriateness of its reporting.

Conclusions

FIAT-Health can support policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public to systematically assess the quality of publicly reported figures on health and healthcare. It also has the potential to support the producers of health and healthcare data in clearly communicating their data to different audiences. Future research should focus on the further validation of the tool in practice.
Literature
1.
Vogel JP, Oxman AD, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Lewin S, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP. Policymakers' and other stakeholders' perceptions of key considerations for health system decisions and the presentation of evidence to inform those considerations: an international survey. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:19.
2.
Schwitzer G, Mudur G, Henry D, Wilson A, Goozner M, Simbra M, Sweet M, Baverstock KA. What are the roles and responsibilities of the media in disseminating health information? PLoS Med. 2005;2(7):e215.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
4.
de Goede J, van Bon-Martens MJH, Mathijssen JJP, Putters K, van Oers HAM. Looking for interaction: quantitative measurement of research utilization by Dutch local health officials. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Williamson JML, Skinner CI, Hocken DB. Death and illness as depicted in the media. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65(5):547–51.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Holmes-Rovner M, Charles S. The mammography screening controversy: who and what is heard in the press? Patient Educ Couns. 2003;51(1):75–81.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Passalacqua R, Caminiti C, Salvagni S, Barni S, Beretta GD, Carlini P, Contu A, Di Costanzo F, Toscano L, Campione F. Effects of media information on cancer patients' opinions, feelings, decision-making process and physician-patient communication. Cancer. 2004;100(5):1077–84.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Burstein P. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit Res Quart. 2003;56(1):29–40.CrossRef
9.
10.
Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Byrne E, McDonnell J. Recognizing rhetoric in health care policy analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(1):40–6.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Evidence-based policymaking: a critique. Perspect Biol Med. 2009;52(2):304–18.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
14.
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.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ritter A. How do drug policy makers access research evidence? Int J Drug Policy. 2009;20(1):70–5.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zardo P, Collie A. Type, frequency and purpose of information used to inform public health policy and program decision-making. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:381.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
McVay AB, Stamatakis KA, Jacobs JA, Tabak RG, Brownson RC. The role of researchers in disseminating evidence to public health practice settings: a cross-sectional study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289(4):454–65.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Casella SL, Kennedy AT, Larson RJ. Press releases by academic medical centers: not so academic? Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(9):613–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bodemer N, Muller SM, Okan Y, Garcia-Retamero R, Neumeyer-Gromen A. Do the media provide transparent health information? A cross-cultural comparison of public information about the HPV vaccine. Vaccine. 2012;30(25):3747–56.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Caulfield T. The commercialisation of medical and scientific reporting. PLoS Med. 2005;1(3), e38.CrossRef
22.
23.
Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, Marroun I, Charles P, Mantz J, Ravaud P. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001308.
24.
Simmerling A, Janich N. Rhetorical functions of a 'language of uncertainty' in the mass media. Public Underst Sci. 2015;25(8):961–75. doi:10.1177/0963662515606681
25.
Goldman SR, Scardamalia M. Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition Instruct. 2013;31(2):255–69.CrossRef
26.
Schwitzer G. Addressing tensions when popular media and evidence-based care collide. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 3:S3. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-S3-S3.
27.
Andermann A, Pang T, Newton JN, Davis A, Panisset U. Evidence for health II: overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
de Goede J, Putters K, van der Grinten T, van Oers HA. Knowledge in process? Exploring barriers between epidemiological research and local health policy development. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
31.
Furedi A. The public health implications of the 1995 'pill scare'. Hum Reprod Update. 1999;5(6):621–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
The Editors. When evidence collides with anecdote, politics, and emotion: breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(8):531–2.CrossRef
33.
Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007;8(2):53–96.CrossRefPubMed
34.
McKeganey N, Russell C. Tobacco plain packaging: evidence based policy or public health advocacy? Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(6):560–8.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Sandell T, Sebar B, Harris N. Framing risk: communication messages in the Australian and Swedish print media surrounding the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Scand J Public Health. 2013;41(8):860–5.CrossRefPubMed
36.
37.
AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(1):18–23.CrossRef
38.
de Koning JS, Kallewaard M, Klazinga NS. Prestatie-indicatoren langs de meetlat – het AIRE instrument. TVGW. 2007;85:261.CrossRef
39.
Stevens GA, Alkema L, Black RE, Boerma JT, Collins GS, Ezzati M, Grove JT, Hogan DR, Hogan MC, Horton R, et al. Guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting: the GATHER statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6), e1002056.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Walker N, Bryce J, Black RE. Interpreting health statistics for policymaking: the story behind the headlines. Lancet. 2007;369(9565):956–63.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Peters E. Beyond comprehension: the role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21(1):31–5.CrossRef
42.
Han PK, Moser RP, Klein WM, Beckjord EB, Dunlavy AC, Hesse BW. Predictors of perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: sociodemographic factors and mass media exposures. Health Commun. 2009;24(8):764–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Jones IR. Health needs and their assessment: demography and epidemiology. In: Bowling A, editor. Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2002. p. 73.
44.
Morris S, Devlin N, Parkin D, Spencer A. Economic Analysis in Healthcare. Chichester: Wiley; 2012.
45.
OECD, Eurostat, WHO. A System of Health Accounts. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2011.
46.
47.
48.
Mackenbach JP, Stronks K. Inleiding. In: Mackenbach JP, Stronks K, editors. Volksgezondheid en gezondheidszorg. 8th ed. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2016. p. 36–7.
49.
Loveday A, Sherar LB, Sanders JP, Sanderson PW, Esliger DW. Technologies that assess the location of physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(8), e192.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Bowling A. Research Methods in Health, Investigating Health and Health Services. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2002.
56.
Nadler JT, Weston R, Voyles EC. Stuck in the middle. The use and interpretation of mid-points in items on questionnaires. J Gen Psychol. 2015;142(2):71–89.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Shwartz M, Restuccia JD, Rosen AK. Composite measures of health care provider performance: a description of approaches. Milbank Q. 2015;93(4):788–825.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Anema HA, van der Veer SN, Kievit J, Krol-Warmerdam E, Fischer C, Steyerberg E, Dongelmans DA, Reidinga AC, Klazinga NS, de Keizer NF. Influences of definition ambiguity on hospital performance indicator scores: examples from The Netherlands. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(1):73–8.CrossRefPubMed
59.
60.
Rosen T, Olsen J. Invited commentary: the art of making questionnaires better. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(12):1145–9.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Jaime Caro J, Eddy DM, Kan H, Kaltz C, Patel B, Eldessouki R, Briggs AH, ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Modeling CER Task Forces. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–82.CrossRefPubMed
62.
63.
Yamagishi K. When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychol. 1997;11(6):495–506.CrossRef
64.
Drummond MF, Sculpter MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
65.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.CrossRef
66.
Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis J-L, Tremblay É. knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):444–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
67.
68.
Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). Introduction. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 Suppl 1:I1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Improving interpretation of publically reported statistics on health and healthcare: the Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool (FIAT-Health)
Authors
Reinie G. Gerrits
Dionne S. Kringos
Michael J. van den Berg
Niek S. Klazinga
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0279-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Mental health research priorities in Australia: a consumer and carer agenda

Research

Exploring the synergies between focused ethnography and integrated knowledge translation

Research

Physician perspectives on Choosing Wisely Canada as an approach to reduce unnecessary medical care: a qualitative study

Study Protocol

Implementing a protocol for a research impact assessment of the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery

Research

Building the evidence base on the HIV programme in India: an integrated approach to document programmatic learnings

Research

Understanding the concept and importance of the health research system in Palestine: a qualitative study