Limit risk displays to the options and outcomes relevant to the current decision

Remove options and outcomes that are not part of the patient’s current choice. For example, when the decision has narrowed to two therapies, show a binary comparison rather than all therapies at once, and when one outcome is the key decision driver, show that outcome alone instead of multiple overlapping outcome breakdowns.

Extra options and redundant outcomes force readers to process information that does not change the current decision. A reduced display concentrates attention on the comparison that matters and makes the size of the benefit easier to judge.

Mechanism: Simplifying the choice set and outcome set lowers cognitive load and increases sensitivity to the magnitude of the treatment difference.

Evidence: The paper reports that simpler presentations focused on a binary choice and showed only survival information improved understanding and made readers more sensitive to the size of the risk reduction compared with fuller multi-option, multi-outcome displays (Fagerlin et al., 2011).

Notes: The paper recommends either deciding in advance which information is essential or exploring preferences so the choice set can be simplified.

• User Goal: Compare the treatments that are actually under consideration now.
• Task: Judge the magnitude of the difference between the relevant options.
• Data: A larger set of possible options or outcomes exists, but some are not relevant to the current clinical situation or preference-sensitive choice.
• Chart Setting: A decision aid or consultation graphic that currently shows several options or several related outcome statistics.
• Audience: Patients making a bounded treatment decision.
• Success Criterion: Readers focus on the live comparison and detect the size of the treatment benefit more accurately.

Break it when: More than two options remain genuinely relevant, or omitted outcomes are still needed for the decision. Why: The paper’s simplification findings came from cases where some options were not relevant or where the decision had effectively narrowed to a binary comparison.

Sacrifice: You give up completeness in the display. Risk: If you simplify too early, you can hide an option or outcome that still matters. Mitigation: Simplify only after deciding which information is essential or after clarifying the patient’s relevant choice set.

Mistake: Show all possible options and several overlapping outcomes together even after the current decision has narrowed. Why it fails: Irrelevant alternatives and redundant statistics compete with the key comparison.

Failure Sign: The display includes options that will not actually be chosen now or multiple statistics that do not change the decision. Quick Check: For each option and each outcome shown, ask whether it can change the current choice. Stronger Test: Compare the full version with a reduced binary, essential-outcome version and see which one makes the treatment difference easier to detect.

• Remove options that are not relevant to the current decision.
• Collapse the display to the current binary comparison when the choice has narrowed to two options.
• Keep only the outcome statistics that are essential to that comparison.