Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Communicating health information with visual displays

Nature Medicine volume 29, pages 1085–1091 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Well-designed visual displays have the power to convey health messages in clear, effective ways to non-experts, including journalists, patients and policymakers. Poorly designed visual displays, however, can confuse and alienate recipients, undermining health messages. In this Perspective, we propose a structured framework for effective visual communication of health information, using case examples of three common communication tasks: comparing treatment options, interpreting test results, and evaluating risk scenarios. We also show simple, practical ways to evaluate a design’s success and guide improvements. The proposed framework is grounded in research on health risk communication, visualization and decision science, as well as our experience in communicating health data.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: A drug fact box for comparing treatments.
Fig. 2: An infographic for interpreting COVID-19 test results.
Fig. 3: Risk heatmaps for reopening movie studios during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tversky, B. Visualizing thought. Top. Cogn. Sci. 3, 499–535 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11, 65–100 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. COVID Crisis Group. Lessons from the COVID War: an Investigative Report (PublicAffairs, 2023).

  4. Franconeri, S. L., Padilla, L. M., Shah, P., Zacks, J. M. & Hullman, J. The science of visual data communication: what works. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 22, 110–161 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hildon, Z., Allwood, D. & Black, N. Impact of format and content of visual display of data on comprehension, choice and preference: a systematic review. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 24, 55–64 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sibrel, S. C., Rathore, R., Lessard, L. & Schloss, K. B. The relation between color and spatial structure for interpreting colormap data visualizations. J. Vis. 20, 7 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Spicer, J., Zhu, J. Q., Chater, N. & Sanborn, A. N. Perceptual and cognitive judgments show both anchoring and repulsion. Psychol. Sci. 33, 1395–1407 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang, Y. et al. Mapping the landscape of COVID-19 crisis visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–23 (ACM, 2021).

  9. Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. et al. Blocks, ovals, or people? Icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs. Med. Decis. Making 34, 443–453 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hullman, J., Qiao, X., Correll, M., Kale, A. & Kay, M. In pursuit of error: a survey of uncertainty visualization evaluation. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 25, 903–913 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. National Cancer Institute Office of Communications and Education. Making Data Talk: a Workbook https://www.cancer.gov/publications/health-communication/making-data-talk.pdf (2011).

  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Visual Communication Resources https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/developmaterials/visual-communication.html (2023).

  13. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013).

  14. Fischhoff, B. & Broomell, S. B. Judgment and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71, 331–355 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fischhoff, B. The sciences of science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14033–14039 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bruine De Bruin, W. & Bostrom, A. Assessing what to address in science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14062–14068 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. von Winterfeldt, D. & Edwards, W. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research (Cambridge University Press, 1986).

  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Literacy https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/index.html (2023).

  19. Santana, S. et al. Updating health literacy for Healthy People 2030: defining its importance for a new decade in public health. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 27, S258–S264 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (MIT Press, 1993).

  22. Merton, R. K. The focused interview and focus groups: continuities and discontinuities. Public Opin. Q. 51, 550–566 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Galesic, M. & Garcia-Retamero, R. Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Med. Decis. Making 31, 444–457 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Peters, E. Innumeracy in the Wild: Misunderstanding and Misusing Numbers (Oxford University Press, 2020).

  25. Peters, E. et al. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci. 17, 407–413 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fagerlin, A. et al. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med. Decis. Making 27, 672–680 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. Development and validation of the scientific reasoning scale. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 30, 26–38 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Parker, A. M., Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischhoff, B. & Weller, J. Robustness of decision-making competence: evidence from two measures and an 11-year longitudinal study. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 31, 380–391 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nutbeam, D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot. Int. 15, 259–267 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Morgan, K. & Fischhoff, B. Mental models for scientists communicating with the public. Issues Sci. Technol. 39, 58–61 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nickerson, R. S. How we know —and sometimes misjudge—what others know: imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychol. Bull. 125, 737–759 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tullis, J. G. & Feder, B. The ‘curse of knowledge’ when predicting others’ knowledge. Mem. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01382-3 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Woloshin, K. K., Ruffin, M. T. 4th & Gorenflo, D. W. Patients’ interpretation of qualitative probability statements. Arch. Fam. Med. 3, 961–966 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bryant, G. D. & Norman, G. R. Expressions of probability: words and numbers. N. Engl. J. Med. 302, 411 (1980).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S. & Welch, H. G. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 150, 516–527 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schwartz, L. M. & Woloshin, S. The drug facts box: improving the communication of prescription drug information. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14069–14074 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S. & Welch, H. G. The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med. Decis. Making 27, 655–662 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Reyna, V. F. A scientific theory of gist communication and misinformation resistance, with implications for health, education, and policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e1912441117 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Woloshin, S. & Schwartz, L. M. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 155, 87–96 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. On the psychology of prediction. Psychol. Rev. 80, 237–251 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Woloshin, S., Dewitt, B., Krishnamurti, T. & Fischhoff, B. Assessing how consumers interpret and act on results from at-home COVID-19 self-test kits: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 182, 332–341 (2022).

  42. Director’s Guild of America, Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Teamsters Motion Picture & Theatrical Trade Division. The Safe Way Forward: a Joint Report of the DGA, SAG-AFTRA, IATSE and Teamsters’ Committees for COVID-19 Safety Guidelines https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sa_documents/ProductionSafetyGuidelines_June2020EditedP.pdf (2023).

  43. Rodriguez, V. L., Fischhoff, B. & Davis, A. L. Risk heatmaps as visual displays: opening movie studios after the COVID‐19 shutdown. Risk Anal. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14017 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Moreland, K. Why we use bad color maps and what you can do about it. Electron. Imaging 28, art00022 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this Perspective was supported in part by the CDC through a financial assistance award to the Department of Machine Learning, Carnegie Mellon University. The contents are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of nor an endorsement by the CDC–HHS or the US Government. The sponsor had no role in the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dartmouth Institute, Lebanon, NH, USA

    Steven Woloshin

  2. Lisa Schwartz Foundation for Truth in Medicine, Norwich, VT, USA

    Steven Woloshin

  3. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Yanran Yang & Baruch Fischhoff

  4. Duke Kunshan University, Jiangsu, China

    Yanran Yang

Authors
  1. Steven Woloshin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yanran Yang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Baruch Fischhoff
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Woloshin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Medicine thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Karen O’Leary, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Woloshin, S., Yang, Y. & Fischhoff, B. Communicating health information with visual displays. Nat Med 29, 1085–1091 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02328-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02328-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing