Table 3. Associations between Risk Communication Strategies with PMV by Standardized Subjective Numeracy Scores.
| Strategy | Version Comparison | Crude / Adjusted* Odds Ratio** (95% CI) |
Crude / Adjusted OR by Standardized Subjective Numeracy Scores |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.5 | −1.0 | 0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | |||
| Order | benefits-AES (sc #1) vs AE-benefits (sc #4) |
2.01 (1.10, 3.69) / 2.18 (1.18, 4.04) |
0.35 / 0.40 |
0.62 / 0.70 |
2.01 / 2.18 |
6.50 / 6.81 |
11.69 / 12.02 |
| Amount | |||||||
| • Benefits | benefits-AES (sc #1) vs BENEFITS-AES (sc #2) |
1.84 (1.00, 3.40) / 1.87 (1.00, 3.49) |
0.67 / 0.73 |
0.93 / 1.00 |
1.84 / 1.87 |
3.64 / 3.48 |
5.11 / 4.75 |
| • Adverse events | BENEFITS-AES (sc #2) vs BENEFITS-aes (sc #3) |
0.61 (0.34,1.09) / 0.58 (1.05, 0.32) |
0.66 / 0.66 |
0.64 / 0.63 |
0.61 / 0.58 |
0.57 / 0.53 |
0.56 / 0.51 |
| Sandwich | benefits-AES (sc #1) vs benefits-AES- benefits (sc #5) |
2.15 (1.17, 3.97) / 2.07 (1.11, 3.85) |
0.60 / 0.68 |
0.91 / 0.99 |
2.15 / 2.07 |
5.06 / 4.36 |
7.77 / 6.33 |
*
Adjusted for choice of physician
**
Proportional odds of perceiving higher benefit versus lower benefit; odds ratios greater than 1 indicate that subjects were more likely to indicate benefits>risks for the first than for the second scenario listed. Bold results indicate that 95% CI does not capture 1.00