↓ Skip to main content

Using eye tracking and gaze pattern analysis to test a “dirty bomb” decision aid in a pilot RCT in urban adults with limited literacy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using eye tracking and gaze pattern analysis to test a “dirty bomb” decision aid in a pilot RCT in urban adults with limited literacy
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0304-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Bauerle Bass, Thomas F. Gordon, Ryan Gordon, Claudia Parvanta

Abstract

Eye tracking is commonly used in marketing to understand complex responses to materials, but has not been used to understand how low-literacy adults access health information or its relationship to decision making. This study assessed how participants use a literacy appropriate "dirty bomb" decision aid. Participants were randomized to receive a CDC "factsheet" (n = 21) or literacy-appropriate aid (n = 29) shown on a computer screen. Using 7 content similar slides, gaze patterns, mean pupil fixation time and mean overall time reading and looking at slides were compared. Groups were also compared by literacy level and effect on 'confidence of knowledge' and intended behavior. Results revealed differing abilities to read densely written material. Intervention participants more precisely followed text on 4 of 7 content-similar slides compared to control participants whose gaze patterns indicated unread text, or repeated attempts at reading the same text, suggesting difficulty in understanding key preparedness messages. Controls had significantly longer pupil fixations on 5 of 7 slides and spent more overall time on every slide. In those with very low literacy, intervention participants were more likely than controls to say they understood what a "dirty bomb" is and how to respond if one should occur. Results indicate limited- literacy adults, especially those with very low literacy, may not be able to understand how to respond during a "dirty bomb" using available materials, making them vulnerable to negative health events. This study provides insights into how individuals perceive and process risk communication messages, illustrating a rich and nuanced understanding of the qualitative experience of a limited literacy population with written materials. It also demonstrates the feasibility of using these methods on a wider scale to develop more effective health and risk communication messages designed to increase knowledge of and compliance with general health guidelines, and enhance decision making. This has application for those with learning disabilities, those with limited media-literacy skills, and those needing to access the diverse array of assistive technologies now available. Eye tracking is thus a practical approach to understanding these diverse needs to ensure the development of cogent and salient communication.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Psychology 7 8%
Engineering 7 8%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 14 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,803,552
of 15,734,993 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#350
of 1,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,072
of 268,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,734,993 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them