Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of young and old patients’ ratings of the three displays

From: The effect of a new lifetime-cardiovascular-risk display on patients’ motivation to participate in shared decision-making

Variable / Sample Bar chart Emoti-cons Time-to-event Total Display Age A*Db Post-hoc testsc
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) p-value (η2 a) p- value (η2 a) p- value (η2 a)
Motivation for SDMd
Young (n = 169) 3.40 (0.89) 3.47 (0.86) 3.59 (0.83) 3.49 (0.79) <.001 (0.035) < .001 (0.084) .445 (0.002) T > E, E > B, T > B
Old (n = 164) 3.88 (0.81) 3.92 (0.77) 4.00 (0.74) 3.94 (0.70)
Total (n = 333) 3.64 (0.89) 3.69 (0.85) 3.79 (0.81)   
Accessibilityd
Young (n = 155) 3.35 (0.88) 3.69 (0.79) 3.81 (0.73) 3.62 (0.65) < .001 (0.102) < .001 (0.045) .005 (0.018) T > E, E > B, T > B
Old (n = 152) 3.79 (0.76) 3.88 (0.76) 4.02 (0.68) 3.90 (0.64) T > E, T > B
Total (n = 307) 3.57 (0.85) 3.79 (0.78) 3.92 (0.71)   
  1. SDM shared decision-making, M mean, SD standard deviation, E emoticons, B bar chart, T time-to-event display
  2. aη2 = effect size; 0.01 = small effect; 0.06 = medium effect; 0.14 = large effect
  3. bInteraction between age group and display. Significance means that the displays’ ratings relate differently to each other in each group
  4. cPost-hoc Scheffé pairwise comparisons of display types in case of significant main effect or interaction: > means significantly higher rating
  5. dRange 1–5; higher numbers reflect higher perceived ability to motivate patients to participate in SDM, or a higher perceived accessibility, respectively