1.Barnes AJ, Hanoch Y, Miron-Shatz T, Ozanne EM. Tailoring risk communication to improve comprehension: Do patient preferences help or hurt? Health psychology: official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association. 2016;35(9):1007–16.
2.Brust-Renck PG, Royer CE, Reyna VF. Communicating Numerical Risk: Human Factors That Aid Understanding in Health Care. Review of human factors and ergonomics. 2013;8(1):235–76.
3.Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient education and counseling. 2008;73(3):448–55.
4.Soureti A, Hurling R, Murray P, van Mechelen W, Cobain M. Evaluation of a cardiovascular disease risk assessment tool for the promotion of healthier lifestyles. European journal of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation: official journal of the European Society of Cardiology, Working Groups on Epidemiology & Prevention and Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology. 2010;17(5):519–23.
5.Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Annals of internal medicine. 2011;155(2):97–107.
6.Cabellos-García AC, Martínez-Sabater A, Castro-Sánchez E, Kangasniemi M, Juárez-Vela R, Gea-Caballero V. Relation between health literacy, self-care and adherence to treatment with oral anticoagulants in adults: a narrative systematic review. BMC public health. 2018;18(1):1157.
7.Harris R, Noble C, Lowers V. Does information form matter when giving tailored risk information to patients in clinical settings? A review of patients’ preferences and responses. Patient preference and adherence. 2017;11:389–400.
8.Hess EP, Coylewright M, Frosch DL, Shah ND. Implementation of shared decision making in cardiovascular care: past, present, and future. Circulation Cardiovascular quality and outcomes. 2014;7(5):797–803.
9.Wilson EA, Makoul G, Bojarski EA, Bailey SC, Waite KR, Rapp DN, et al. Comparative analysis of print and multimedia health materials: a review of the literature. Patient education and counseling. 2012;89(1):7–14.
10.Miller DP, Jr., Spangler JG, Case LD, Goff DC, Jr., Singh S, Pignone MP. Effectiveness of a web-based colorectal cancer screening patient decision aid: a randomized controlled trial in a mixed-literacy population. American journal of preventive medicine. 2011;40(6):608–15.
11.Waldron C-A. Cardiovascular risk prediction: how useful are web-based tools and do risk representation formats matter? [PhD]. United kingdom: Cardiff University; 2011.
12.Kher A, Johnson S, Griffith R. Readability Assessment of Online Patient Education Material on Congestive Heart Failure. Advances in preventive medicine. 2017;2017:9780317.
13.Wells S, Kerr A, Eadie S, Wiltshire C, Jackson R. ‘Your Heart Forecast’: a new approach for describing and communicating cardiovascular risk? Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2010;96(9):708–13.
14.Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics. Human factors. 2017;59(4):582–627.
15.Waldron CA, van der Weijden T, Ludt S, Gallacher J, Elwyn G. What are effective strategies to communicate cardiovascular risk information to patients? A systematic review. Patient education and counseling. 2011;82(2):169–81.
16.Lee YJ, Shin SJ, Wang RH, Lin KD, Lee YL, Wang YH. Pathways of empowerment perceptions, health literacy, self-efficacy, and self-care behaviors to glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patient education and counseling. 2016;99(2):287–94.
17.Agoritsas T, Merglen A, Courvoisier DS, Combescure C, Garin N, Perrier A, et al. Sensitivity and predictive value of 15 PubMed search strategies to answer clinical questions rated against full systematic reviews. Journal of medical Internet research. 2012;14(3):e85.
18.Cardiology ESo. SCORE Risk Charts: European Society of Cardiology; 2018 [Available from: https://www.escardio.org/.
19.Lund H, Juhl C, Andreasen J, Møller A. Håndbog i litteratursøgning og kritisk læsning. 1 ed. København: Munksgaard; 2014.
20.Medical Research Library OUH. Søgefiltre: Medical Research Library, Odense University Hospital; 2018 [Available from: http://videncentret.dk/guides/search-filters/.
21.McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters. Health information and libraries journal. 2009;26(3):187–202.
22.Lee E, Dobbins M, Decorby K, McRae L, Tirilis D, Husson H. An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMC medical research methodology. 2012;12:51.
23.The CONSORT group. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial: The CONSORT group; 2010 [Available from: http://www.consort-statement.org/media/default/downloads/consort%202010%20checklist.pdf.
24.Fraccaro P, Vigo M, Balatsoukas P, van der Veer SN, Hassan L, Williams R, et al. Presentation of laboratory test results in patient portals: influence of interface design on risk interpretation and visual search behaviour. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2018;18(1):11.
25.Perestelo-Perez L, Rivero-Santana A, Boronat M, Sanchez-Afonso JA, Perez-Ramos J, Montori VM, et al. Effect of the statin choice encounter decision aid in Spanish patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized trial. Patient education and counseling. 2016;99(2):295–9.
26.Peiris D, Usherwood T, Panaretto K, Harris M, Hunt J, Redfern J, et al. Effect of a computer-guided, quality improvement program for cardiovascular disease risk management in primary health care: the treatment of cardiovascular risk using electronic decision support cluster-randomized trial. Circulation Cardiovascular quality and outcomes. 2015;8(1):87–95.
27.Chmiel C, Senn O, Rosemann T, Del Prete V, Steurer-Stey C. CoCo trial: Color-coded blood pressure Control, a randomized controlled study. Patient preference and adherence. 2014;8:1383–92.
28.Garcia-Retamero R, Hoffrage U. Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients. Soc Sci Med. 2013;83:27–33.
29.Ruiz JG, Andrade AD, Garcia-Retamero R, Anam R, Rodriguez R, Sharit J. Communicating global cardiovascular risk: Are icon arrays better than numerical estimates in improving understanding, recall and perception of risk? Patient education and counseling. 2013;93(3):394–402.
30.Nieuwkerk PT, Nierman MC, Vissers MN, Locadia M, Greggers-Peusch P, Knape LP, et al. Intervention to improve adherence to lipid-lowering medication and lipid-levels in patients with an increased cardiovascular risk. The American journal of cardiology. 2012;110(5):666–72.
31.McCaffery KJ, Dixon A, Hayen A, Jansen J, Smith S, Simpson JM. The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: a randomized experimental study. Medical Decision Making. 2012;32(4):532–44.
32.Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Witteman HO, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Exe NL, Kahn VC, Dickson M. Animated Graphics for Comparing Two Risks: A Cautionary Tale. Journal of medical Internet research. 2012;14(4).
33.Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Chan L, Jackson R, Wells S, Kenealy T. Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Annals of family medicine. 2008;6(3):213–7.
34.Shukla AN, Daly MK, Legutko P. Informed consent for cataract surgery: patient understanding of verbal, written, and videotaped information. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2012;38(1):80–4.
35.Velazquez-Lopez L, Munoz-Torres AV, Medina-Bravo P, Vilchis-Gil J, Klupsilonnder-Klupsilonnder M, Escobedo-de la Pena J. Multimedia education program and nutrition therapy improves HbA1c, weight, and lipid profile of patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Endocrine. 2017;58(2):236–45.
36.Wallis MG. How do we manage overdiagnosis/overtreatment in breast screening? Clinical Radiology. 2018;73(4):372–80.
37.Hildon Z, Allwood D, Black N. Impact of format and content of visual display of data on comprehension, choice and preference: a systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2012;24(1):55–64.