Doctor, what does my positive test mean? From Bayesian textbook tasks to personalized risk communication
- PMID: 26441711
- PMCID: PMC4585185
- DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01327
Doctor, what does my positive test mean? From Bayesian textbook tasks to personalized risk communication
Abstract
Most of the research on Bayesian reasoning aims to answer theoretical questions about the extent to which people are able to update their beliefs according to Bayes' Theorem, about the evolutionary nature of Bayesian inference, or about the role of cognitive abilities in Bayesian inference. Few studies aim to answer practical, mainly health-related questions, such as, "What does it mean to have a positive test in a context of cancer screening?" or "What is the best way to communicate a medical test result so a patient will understand it?". This type of research aims to translate empirical findings into effective ways of providing risk information. In addition, the applied research often adopts the paradigms and methods of the theoretically-motivated research. But sometimes it works the other way around, and the theoretical research borrows the importance of the practical question in the medical context. The study of Bayesian reasoning is relevant to risk communication in that, to be as useful as possible, applied research should employ specifically tailored methods and contexts specific to the recipients of the risk information. In this paper, we concentrate on the communication of the result of medical tests and outline the epidemiological and test parameters that affect the predictive power of a test-whether it is correct or not. Building on this, we draw up recommendations for better practice to convey the results of medical tests that could inform health policy makers (What are the drawbacks of mass screenings?), be used by health practitioners and, in turn, help patients to make better and more informed decisions.
Keywords: Bayesian reasoning; Bayesian textbook tasks; medical tests; positive predictive value; risk communication.
Figures
Similar articles
-
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009. PMID: 27820426
-
Good fences make for good neighbors but bad science: a review of what improves Bayesian reasoning and why.Front Psychol. 2015 Mar 31;6:340. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00340. eCollection 2015. Front Psychol. 2015. PMID: 25873904 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review.Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(38):1-130. Health Technol Assess. 2000. PMID: 11134920 Review.
-
Bayesian versus diagnostic information in physician-patient communication: Effects of direction of statistical information and presentation of visualization.PLoS One. 2023 Jun 7;18(6):e0283947. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283947. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 37285320 Free PMC article.
-
Physician and Nonphysician Estimates of Positive Predictive Value in Diagnostic v. Mass Screening Mammography: An Examination of Bayesian Reasoning.Med Decis Making. 2019 Feb;39(2):108-118. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18823757. Epub 2019 Jan 24. Med Decis Making. 2019. PMID: 30678607
Cited by
-
From reading numbers to seeing ratios: a benefit of icons for risk comprehension.Psychol Res. 2019 Nov;83(8):1808-1816. doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1041-4. Epub 2018 Jun 21. Psychol Res. 2019. PMID: 29931591
-
Editorial: Improving Bayesian Reasoning: What Works and Why?Front Psychol. 2015 Dec 2;6:1872. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01872. eCollection 2015. Front Psychol. 2015. PMID: 26696936 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Baratgin J., Politzer G. (2006). Is the mind Bayesian? The case for agnosticism. Mind Society 5, 1–38. 10.1007/s11299-006-0007-1 - DOI
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources