These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

342 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21191122)

  • 41. Comparing the impact of an icon array versus a bar graph on preference and understanding of risk information: Results from an online, randomized study.
    Scalia P; Schubbe DC; Lu ES; Durand MA; Frascara J; Noel G; O'Malley AJ; Elwyn G
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(7):e0253644. PubMed ID: 34297713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial.
    Woloshin S; Schwartz LM
    Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(2):87-96. PubMed ID: 21768582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Consumer confusion between prescription drug precautions and side effects.
    Amoozegar JB; Rupert DJ; Sullivan HW; O'Donoghue AC
    Patient Educ Couns; 2017 Jun; 100(6):1111-1119. PubMed ID: 28069321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Strengths and Gaps in Physicians' Risk Communication: A Scenario Study of the Influence of Numeracy on Cancer Screening Communication.
    Petrova D; Kostopoulou O; Delaney BC; Cokely ET; Garcia-Retamero R
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Apr; 38(3):355-365. PubMed ID: 28884617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison.
    Galesic M; Garcia-Retamero R
    Med Decis Making; 2011; 31(3):444-57. PubMed ID: 20671213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Assessing perceptions of cancer risk: does mode of assessment or numeracy matter?
    Kelly KM; Graves KD; Harper FW; Schmidt JE; Dickinson SL; Andrykowski MA
    Cancer Detect Prev; 2007; 31(6):465-73. PubMed ID: 18061368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. A comparison of on-pack Quitline information formats.
    Hoek J; Gendall P; Eckert C; Rolls K; Louviere J
    Tob Control; 2016 Mar; 25(2):211-7. PubMed ID: 25361746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Effect of different formats for information on side effects regarding medicine users' understanding: A randomized controlled trial.
    Moraes CG; da Silva Dal Pizzol T
    Patient Educ Couns; 2018 Apr; 101(4):672-678. PubMed ID: 29203083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Pharmaceutical Benefit-Risk Perception and Age Differences in the USA and Germany.
    Balog-Way DHP; Evensen D; Löfstedt RE
    Drug Saf; 2020 Nov; 43(11):1141-1156. PubMed ID: 32705447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Comprehension and choice of a consumer-directed health plan: an experimental study.
    Greene J; Peters E; Mertz CK; Hibbard JH
    Am J Manag Care; 2008 Jun; 14(6):369-76. PubMed ID: 18554075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale.
    Fagerlin A; Zikmund-Fisher BJ; Ubel PA; Jankovic A; Derry HA; Smith DM
    Med Decis Making; 2007; 27(5):672-80. PubMed ID: 17641137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Investigating the impact of message format, involvement, scientific literacy, and education on attitude toward reducing cancer risk through regulation.
    Silk KJ; Nazione S; Neuberger L; Smith S; Atkin C
    J Cancer Educ; 2012 Mar; 27(1):172-8. PubMed ID: 22124892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The effects of infographics and several quantitative versus qualitative formats for cardiovascular disease risk, including heart age, on people's risk understanding.
    Damman OC; Vonk SI; van den Haak MJ; van Hooijdonk CMJ; Timmermans DRM
    Patient Educ Couns; 2018 Aug; 101(8):1410-1418. PubMed ID: 29559200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk.
    Peters E
    Ann N Y Acad Sci; 2008 Apr; 1128():1-7. PubMed ID: 18469208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Placement and Format of Risk Information on Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Websites.
    Sullivan HW; O'Donoghue AC; Rupert DJ; Willoughby JF; Aikin KJ
    J Health Commun; 2017 Feb; 22(2):171-181. PubMed ID: 28129069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Influence of graphic format on comprehension of risk information among American Indians.
    Sprague D; LaVallie DL; Wolf FM; Jacobsen C; Sayson K; Buchwald D
    Med Decis Making; 2011; 31(3):437-43. PubMed ID: 21191119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health.
    Garcia-Retamero R; Galesic M
    J Gen Intern Med; 2010 Dec; 25(12):1323-9. PubMed ID: 20737295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data.
    Sheridan SL; Pignone M
    Eff Clin Pract; 2002; 5(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 11874195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Animated graphics for comparing two risks: a cautionary tale.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ; Witteman HO; Fuhrel-Forbis A; Exe NL; Kahn VC; Dickson M
    J Med Internet Res; 2012 Jul; 14(4):e106. PubMed ID: 22832208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Health literacy and numeracy: key factors in cancer risk comprehension.
    Donelle L; Arocha JF; Hoffman-Goetz L
    Chronic Dis Can; 2008; 29(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 19036218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.