Put simply, no. But anyone can improve their communications by being very intentional. What do you want the person to think, feel, or do immediately upon receipt of the number? Let that guide the selection of format.

Depends on a) what kind of number / what kind of visual and b) what you mean by "better". As I and my co-authors discuss here (doi.org/10.1093/jami...), there are at least 12-14 different outcomes of number communication, and no format is best at all of them.

Very proud of authoring this JAMA piece summarizing the most evidence based recommendations we have about communicating probabilities and test results to patients. Now to hope that people believe that using these best practices matters!

Thanks, @mcpoliti.bsky.social! We hope that people can accept the challenging idea that there is no "best" way to communicate risk because EVERY approach improves some outcomes but diminishes others. We have to make a new choice each time we communicate, and we must know our goals to do so.

The Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review papers are now available! Review of 316 papers on communicating health-related probabilities to the public. 1,119 findings. Methods / scoping paper, 6 evidence summary papers, 5 editorials. All open access.
journals.sagepub.com/topic/collec...

🎉 Meet the Member: Brian! 🎉

🧠 Area of Expertise: Risk Communication & Shared Decision-Making

🎭 Fun Fact: Uses improv theater games to enhance teaching, research presentations, and communication skills!

Brian has been an SMDM member since 2000 and deeply values its mentoring culture. 💙

Great to see my friend and colleague @ldscherer.bsky.social and Kirsten McCaffery from @sydneyhealthlitlab.bsky.social in today's New York Times talking about how calling something "cancer" may not be helpful for decision making about DCIS!

Tagging @smdm.bsky.social for amplification.

Great discussion by my colleague @kaytesb.bsky.social on what actually happens to direct-to-consumer genetic testing data.

I'm pleased to announce that the supplements are now fixed and available for download at JAMA!

Unfortunately, JAMA messed up the publication of the supplements. They're fixing it now, should be available online fairly soon. In the meantime, while we can't post them, we can send them directly to anyone who reaches out directly to Dr. Lapedis or me.

Thanks for the callout, @iwashyna.bsky.social! I hope this convinces people that it's simply unethical not to provide a patient-friendly, plain language summary like our PCPR format, given that patients have direct access to these reports in their records.

I've published literally hundreds of studies, but this one will always be special. I'm so proud to have helped Dr. Cathryn Lapedis show so convincingly how BAD current prostate biopsy pathology reports are compared to a simple patient-centered design. PLUS: my first JAMA article ever!