Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 10.
Published in final edited form as: Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Dec 22;99(5):790–799. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.12.015

Table 5.

Weighted means (95% confidence intervals) and percentages of dependent variables by visual aids.

Visual Aid
Efficacy Level
Dependent Variables Pie Chart Bar Chart Table Pictograph No Visual Low High
Print Ad
 N 269 262 251 259 268 668 641
 Intention: Talk to doctor 2.1 (1.9-2.2) 1.8 (1.7-2.0) 2.1 (1.9-2.2) 1.9 (1.8-2.1) 2.1 (1.9-2.2) 2.0 (1.9-2.1) 2.0 (1.9-2.2)
 Intention: Search for information 2.0 (1.9-2.2) 1.91 (1.8-2.0) 2.0 (1.8-2.2) 2.1 (1.9-2.2) 2.1 (2.0-2.3) 2.0 (1.9-2.1) 2.1 (2.0-2.2)
 Intention: Take drug 2.5 (2.3-2.6) 2.3 (2.2-2.5) 2.3 (2.1-2.5) 2.4 (2.2-2.5) 2.4 (2.3-2.6) 2.4 (2.3-2.5) 2.4 (2.3-2.5)
 Attitude toward the drug 3.2 (3.0-3.3) 2.9 (2.8-3.1) 3.0 (2.9-3.2) 3.1 (3.0-3.2) 3.0 (2.9-3.2) 2.9 (2.8-3.0) 3.2* (3.1-3.3)
 Benefit-risk assessment 4.0 (3.8-4.3) 3.8 (3.5-4.0) 3.8 (3.5-4.0) 4.0 (3.8-4.3) 3.9 (3.7-4.2) 3.7 (3.6-3.8) 4.1* (4.0-4.3)
 Perceived efficacy 4.3 (4.0-4.6) 4.3 (4.0-4.5) 4.3 (4.0-4.6) 4.4 (4.1-4.7) 4.3 (4.0-4.5) 4.0 (3.9-4.2) 4. 6* (4.4-4.7)
 Perceived risk 4.1 (3.9-4.3) 4.2 (4.0-4.5) 4.2 (4.0-4.5) 4.2 (4.0-4.5) 4.3 (4.0-4.5) 4.4 (4.2-4.5) 4.1* (3.9-4.2)
 Aided risk recall 5.9 (5.7-6.1) 5.8 (5.6-6.0) 6.1 (5.8-6..4) 5.9 (5.7-6.1) 5.8 (5.6-6.0) 5.9 (5.7-6.0) 6.0 (5.8-6.1)
 Unaided risk recall (%) 80.8 84.5 87.6 83.6 83.4 82.5 85.4
Television Ad
 N 241 237 238 241 238 596 599
 Intention: talk to doctor 1.9 (1.8-2.0) 1.9 (1.7-2.0) 2.0 (1.8-2.1) 1.9 (1.8-2.1) 1.9 (1.7-2.0) 1.8 (1.7-1.9) 2.0* (1.9-2.1)
 Intention: search for information 1.9 (1.8-2.0) 2.0 (1.9-2.2) 2.0 (1.8-2.1) 2.1 (1.9-2.2) 2.0 (1.8-2.1) 1.9 (1.8-2.0) 2.0 (1.9-2.1)
 Intention: take drug 2.4 (2.2-2.5) 2.4 (2.3-2.6) 2.3 (2.2-2.5) 2.4 (2.2-2.5) 2.4 (2.2-2.5) 2.2 (2.1-2.3) 2.5* (2.4-2.6)
 Attitude toward the drug 3.0 (2.9-3.1) 2.9 (2.8-3.1) 3.0 (2.9-3.1) 3.1 (2.9-3.2) 3.1 (2.9-3.2) 2.9 (2.8-3.0) 3.2* (3.1-3.2)
 Benefit-risk assessment 3.8 (3.6-4.0) 3.9 (3.6-4.1) 3.9 (3.7-4.1) 4.0 (3.7-4.2) 3.8 (3.6-4.0) 3.5 (3.4-3.6) 4.2*(4.1-4.4)
 Perceived efficacy 4.3 (4.0-4.5) 4.4 (4.1-4.7) 4.4 (4.2-4.6) 4.5 (4.3-4.8) 4.3 (4.1-4.6) 4.0 (3.9-4.2) 4.8* (4.6-4.9)
 Perceived risk 4.1 (3.9-4.3) 4.0 (3.8-4.3) 4.2 (4.0-4.4) 4.0 (3.8-4.2) 4.2 (4.0-4.4) 4.3 (4.2-4.4) 3.9* (3.8-4.0)
 Aided risk recall 6.6 (6.3-6.8) 6.7 (6.5-6.8) 6.4 (6.2-6.7) 6.5 (6.3-6.7) 6.4 (6.2-6.6) 6.5 (6.4-6.6) 6.5 (6.4-6.6)
 Unaided risk recall (%) 85.6 87.4 85.3 87.4 85.8 88.3 84.2

Note:

*

Denotes significant difference compared with the low efficacy condition (P < 0.05).

Intention measures were assessed on a scale from 1 = not at all likely to 4 = extremely likely. Attitude toward the drug was assessed on a scale from 1 = very bad to 5 = very good. Benefit-risk assessment was assessed on a scale from 1= more risks than benefits to 7 = more benefits than risks. Perceived efficacy was assessed on a scale from 1 = not at all effective/well to 7 = very effective/well. Perceived risk was assessed on a scale from 1 = very safe/not at all risky to 7 = not at all safe/very risky. Aided risk recall is the sum of correct responses (0 to 8). Unaided risk recall is the percent who recalled one or more correct risks in an open-ended format. There were no significant differences among visual aid conditions on these measures.