This proposal aims to leverage the existing investment by the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation in a CEA decision aid (DA) to answer two applied research questions with implications for both the CEA DA and future (new and/or revised or cross-nationally adapted) DAs. How well can a DA’s main message (the ‘gist’) and key risk/benefit data be communicated with a lower budget, more pragmatic, lower tech written booklet (Version A) compared to two more sophisticated alternatives better-suited to web-based delivery channels, but which are still less involved than a full production DVD?
Our specific aims are:
Specific aim 1: To assess the incremental gain in knowledge, message comprehension, and decision quality for a DA Version B that adds simple animated graphics and diagrams to the base program of static text and graphics (Version A).
Specific aim 2: To assess the incremental gain in knowledge, message comprehension, and decision quality for a DA Version C that adds an interactive, personal risk/benefit calculator compared to Version B (& A) which present generic, average risk/benefit information
While these alternative strategies are attractive from a common sense and risk communication/health psychology theoretical perspective, there is scant published data about how much better relative to the increased time and money. Is the “extra juice worth the squeeze?”