{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Insufficient evidence for interactive or animated graphics for communicating probability.
{Author}: Ancker JS;Benda NC;Zikmund-Fisher BJ;
{Journal}: J Am Med Inform Assoc
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jun 21
{Factor}: 7.942
{DOI}: 10.1093/jamia/ocae123
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>We sought to analyze interactive visualizations and animations of health probability data (such as chances of disease or side effects) that have been studied in head-to-head comparisons with either static graphics or numerical communications.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Secondary analysis of a large systematic review on ways to communicate numbers in health.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>We group the research to show that 4 types of animated or interactive visualizations have been studied by multiple researchers: those that simulate experience of probabilistic events; those that demonstrate the randomness of those events; those that reduce information overload by directing attention sequentially to different items of information; and those that promote elaborative thinking. Overall, these 4 types of visualizations do not show strong evidence of improving comprehension, risk perception, or health behaviors over static graphics.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Evidence is not yet strong that interactivity or animation is more effective than static graphics for communicating probabilities in health. We discuss 2 possibilities: that the most effective visualizations haven't been studied, and that the visualizations aren't effective.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Future studies should rigorously compare participant performance with novel interactive or animated visualizations against their performance with static visualizations. Such evidence would help determine whether health communicators should emphasize novel interactive visualizations or rely on older forms of visual communication, which may be accessible to broader audiences, including those with limited digital access.