1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
  4. Volume 11, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application

Volume 11, 2024

Communication of Statistics and Evidence in Times of Crisis

Abstract

This review provides an overview of concepts relating to the communication of statistical and empirical evidence in times of crisis, with a special focus on COVID-19. In it, we consider topics relating to both the communication of numbers, such as the role of format, context, comparisons, and visualization, and the communication of evidence more broadly, such as evidence quality, the influence of changes in available evidence, transparency, and repeated decision-making. A central focus is on the communication of the inherent uncertainties in statistical analysis, especially in rapidly changing informational environments during crises. We present relevant literature on these topics and draw connections to the communication of statistics and empirical evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. We finish by suggesting some considerations for those faced with communicating statistics and evidence in times of crisis.

Keyword(s): COVID-19, decision-making, evidence communication, SARS-CoV-2, statistical communication, trust, uncertainty
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040722-052011
2024-04-22
2024-05-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/statistics/11/1/annurev-statistics-040722-052011.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040722-052011&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adam D. 2020.. A guide to R—the pandemic's misunderstood metric. . Nature 583:(7816):346–48
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alós-Ferrer C, Hügelschäfer S, Li J. 2016.. Inertia and decision making. . Front. Psychol. 7::169
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. 2011.. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. . J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64:(4):401–6
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Batteux E, Bilovich A, Johnson SGB, Tuckett D. 2022.. Negative consequences of failing to communicate uncertainties during a pandemic: an online randomised controlled trial on COVID-19 vaccines. . BMJ Open 12:(9):e051352
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Belia S, Fidler F, Williams J, Cumming G. 2005.. Researchers misunderstand confidence intervals and standard error bars. . Psychol. Methods 10:(4):389–96
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Blastland M, Freeman ALJ, van der Linden S, Marteau TM, Spiegelhalter D. 2020.. Five rules for evidence communication. . Nature 587:(7834):362–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bostrom A, Anselin L, Farris J. 2008.. Visualizing seismic risk and uncertainty: a review of related research. . Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1128::29–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brick C, Freeman ALJ. 2021.. Communicating evidence in icons and summary formats for policymakers: What works?. Behav. Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.54
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brick C, McDowell M, Freeman ALJ. 2020.. Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on “fact boxes. .” R. Soc. Open Sci. 7:(3):190876
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brodlie K, Osorio RA, Lopes A. 2012.. A review of uncertainty in data visualization. . In Expanding the Frontiers of Visual Analytics and Visualization, ed. J Dill, R Earnshaw, D Kasik, J Vince, PC Wong , pp. 81–109. New York:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Büchter RB, Fechtelpeter D, Knelangen M, Ehrlich M, Waltering A. 2014.. Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis. . BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 14:(1):76
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Budescu DV, Por H-H, Broomell SB. 2012.. Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. . Clim. Change 113:(2):181–200
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Castro SC, Quinan PS, Hosseinpour H, Padilla L. 2022.. Examining effort in 1D uncertainty communication using individual differences in working memory and NASA-TLX. . IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 28:(1):411–21
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.). 2022.. Lightning strike victim data. Fact Sheet , US Dep. Health Hum. Serv., Washington, DC:
  15. Champkin J. 2013.. Lord Krebs. . Significance 10:(5):23–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cologna V, Siegrist M. 2020.. The role of trust for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviour: a meta-analysis. . J. Environ. Psychol. 69::101428
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Correll M, Bertini E, Franconeri S. 2020.. Truncating the y-axis: threat or menace?. In CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Correll M, Gleicher M. 2014.. Error bars considered harmful: exploring alternate encodings for mean and error. . IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 20:(12):2142–51
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cuite CL, Weinstein ND, Emmons K, Colditz G. 2008.. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. . Med. Decis. Mak. 28:(3):377–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Denes-Raj V, Epstein S, Cole J. 1995.. The generality of the ratio-bias phenomenon. . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21:(10):1083–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dryhurst S, Schneider CR, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, et al. 2020.. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. . J. Risk Res. 23::9941006
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. Evans R. 2021.. SAGE advice and political decision-making: ‘following the science’ in times of epistemic uncertainty. . Soc. Stud. Sci. 52:(1):53–78
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Falbén JK, Golubickis M, Tamulaitis S, Caughey S, Tsamadi D, et al. 2020.. Self-relevance enhances evidence gathering during decision-making. . Acta Psychol. 209::103122
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. Finucane ML, Alhakami ALI, Slovic P, Johnson SM. 2000.. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. . J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 13:(1):1–17
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fischhoff B. 2012.. Communicating uncertainty: fulfilling the duty to inform. . Issues Sci. Technol. 28:(4):63–70
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Fountain H. 2011.. Trial over earthquake in Italy puts focus on probability and panic. . New York Times, Oct. 3, p. D3-L
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Franconeri SL, Padilla LM, Shah P, Zacks JM, Hullman J. 2021.. The science of visual data communication: what works. . Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 22:(3):110–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Freeman ALJ, Kerr J, Recchia G, Schneider CR, Lawrence ACE, et al. 2021.. Communicating personalized risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study. . R. Soc. Open Sci. 8::201721
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gal D. 2006.. A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion. . Judgm. Decis. Mak. 1:(1):23–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. 2009.. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. . Health Psychol. 28:(2):210–16
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. 2009.. Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: a cross-cultural comparison. . Am. J. Public Health 99:(12):2196–202
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Gigerenzer G. 2010.. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect?. Med. Decis. Mak. 30:(6):672–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gaspar-Escribano JM, Iturrioz T. 2011.. Communicating earthquake risk: mapped parameters and cartographic representation. . Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11:(2):359–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gigerenzer G. 2014.. Should patients listen to how doctors frame messages?. BMJ 349::g7091
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gregory M. 2021.. Communicating data is more than just presenting the numbers. . Regulation Blog, Nov. 2. https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/blog/communicating-data-is-more-than-just-presenting-the-numbers/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gustafson A, Rice RE. 2020.. A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. . Public Underst. Sci. 29:(6):614–33
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. 2008a.. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. . BMJ 336::924–26
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. 2008b.. GRADE: What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?. BMJ 336::995–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Haas C. 2020.. Coronavirus and risk analysis. . Risk Anal. 40::660–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hagemeier-Klose M, Wagner K. 2009.. Evaluation of flood hazard maps in print and web mapping services as information tools in flood risk communication. . Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9:(2):563–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Han PKJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Duarte CW, Knaus M, Black A, et al. 2018.. Communication of scientific uncertainty about a novel pandemic health threat: ambiguity aversion and its mechanisms. . J. Health Commun. 23:(5):435–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Harris RL. 2000.. Information Graphics: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
  43. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. 2008.. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. . Patient Educ. Couns. 73:(3):448–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hofman JM, Goldstein DG, Hullman J. 2020.. How visualizing inferential uncertainty can mislead readers about treatment effects in scientific results. . In CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Howe LC, MacInnis B, Krosnick JA, Markowitz EM, Socolow R. 2019.. Acknowledging uncertainty impacts public acceptance of climate scientists’ predictions. . Nat. Clim. Change 9:(11):863–67
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Huff D. 1954.. How to Lie with Statistics. New York:: W.W. Norton
  47. Hullman J, Resnick P, Adar E. 2015.. Hypothetical outcome plots outperform error bars and violin plots for inferences about reliability of variable ordering. . PLOS ONE 10:(11):e0142444
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, et al. 2017.. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. . J. Clin. Epidemiol. 87::4–13
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hyland-Wood B, Gardner J, Leask J, Ecker UKH. 2021.. Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of COVID-19. . Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 8:(1):30
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change). 2022.. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. H-O Pörtner, DC Roberts, M Tignor, ES Poloczanska, K Mintenbeck , et al. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Johnson BB, Slovic P. 1995.. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. . Risk Anal. 15:(4):485–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Jones W. 2021.. Hide the vaccine failure: UKHSA caves to pressure and removes chart showing higher infection rates in the vaccinated—as effectiveness hits new low of minus-132%. . The Daily Sceptic, Oct. 30. https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/30/hide-the-vaccine-failure-ukhsa-caves-to-pressure-and-removes-chart-showing-higher-infection-rates-in-the-vaccinated-as-effectiveness-hits-new-low-of-minus-132/
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Joslyn S, Demnitz R. 2021.. Explaining how long CO₂ stays in the atmosphere: Does it change attitudes toward climate change?. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 27:(3):473–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Joslyn SL, Leclerc JE. 2016.. Climate projections and uncertainty communication. . Top. Cogn. Sci. 8:(1):222–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Kahneman D. 2011.. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York:: Macmillan
  56. Kale A, Kay M, Hullman J. 2021.. Visual reasoning strategies for effect size judgments and decisions. . IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 27:(2):272–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, et al. 1988.. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. . Risk Anal. 8:(2):177–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Keller C, Siegrist M, Visschers V. 2009.. Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. . Risk Anal. 29:(9):1255–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kerr JR, Schneider CR, Freeman ALJ, Marteau T. 2022.. Transparent communication of evidence does not undermine public trust in evidence. . PNAS Nexus 1:(5):pgac280
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Kreps SE, Kriner DL. 2020.. Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. . Sci. Adv. 6:(43):eabd4563
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Lejarraga T, Gonzalez C. 2011.. Effects of feedback and complexity on repeated decisions from description. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116:(2):286–95
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. 1999.. The visual communication of risk. . J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 1999:(25):149–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Liu L, Padilla L, Creem-Regehr SH, House DH. 2019.. Visualizing uncertain tropical cyclone predictions using representative samples from ensembles of forecast tracks. . IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 25:(1):882–91
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. Mandel DR, Irwin D. 2021.. On measuring agreement with numerically bounded linguistic probability schemes: a re-analysis of data from Wintle, Fraser, Wills, Nicholson, and Fidler 2019. . PLOS ONE 16:(3):e0248424
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Mandel DR, Wallsten TS, Budescu DV. 2021.. Numerically bounded linguistic probability schemes are unlikely to communicate uncertainty effectively. . Earth's Future 9:(1):e2020EF001526
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. McCann BT. 2020.. Using Bayesian updating to improve decisions under uncertainty. . Calif. Manag. Rev. 63:(1):26–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. McConway K, Spiegelhalter D. 2021.. Sound human, steer clear of jargon, and be prepared. . Significance 18:(2):32–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Molteni M, Rogers A. 2020.. How masks went from don't-wear to must-have. . Wired, July 2. https://www.wired.com/story/how-masks-went-from-dont-wear-to-must-have/
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Moxey A, Connell DO, McGettigan P, Henry D. 2003.. Describing treatment effects to patients: how they are expressed makes a difference. . J. Gen. Intern. Med. 18::948–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Newman GE, Scholl BJ. 2012.. Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: the within-the-bar bias. . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19:(4):601–7
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. O'Neill O. 2018.. Linking trust to trustworthiness. . Int. J. Philos. Stud. 26:(2):293–300
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. O'Neill O. 2020.. Questioning trust. . In The Routledge Handbook of Trust and Philosophy, ed. J Simon , pp. 17–27. London:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  73. O'Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S. 2009.. “Fear won't do it”: promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. . Sci. Commun. 30:(3):355–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Ohman A, Flykt A, Esteves F. 2001.. Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the grass. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130:(3):466–78
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Olson JM, Brewer CA. 1997.. An evaluation of color selections to accommodate map users with color-vision impairments. . Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 87:(1):103–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Oltermann P. 2020.. Angela Merkel draws on science background in Covid-19 explainer. . The Guardian, Apr. 16. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/16/angela-merkel-draws-on-science-background-in-covid-19-explainer-lockdown-exit
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Padilla L, Hosseinpour H, Fygenson R, Howell J, Chunara R, Bertini E. 2022a.. Impact of COVID-19 forecast visualizations on pandemic risk perceptions. . Sci. Rep. 12:(1):2014
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Padilla L, Kay M, Hullman J. 2022b.. Uncertainty visualization. . In Computational Statistics in Data Science, ed. W Piegorsch, R Levine, H Zhang, T Lee , pp. 405–21. New York:: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Padilla LM, Ruginski IT, Creem-Regehr SH. 2017.. Effects of ensemble and summary displays on interpretations of geospatial uncertainty data. . Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2:(1):40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Padilla LMK, Creem-Regehr SH, Thompson W. 2020.. The powerful influence of marks: visual and knowledge-driven processing in hurricane track displays. . J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 26:(1):1–15
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Pandey AV, Rall K, Satterthwaite ML, Nov O, Bertini E. 2015.. How deceptive are deceptive visualizations? An empirical analysis of common distortion techniques. . In CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Peeples L. 2021.. What the science says about lifting mask mandates. . Nature 593:(7860):495–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Petersen MB, Bor A, Jørgensen F, Lindholt MF. 2021.. Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust. . PNAS 118:(29):e2024597118
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Pidgeon N. 2012.. Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. . Clim. Policy 12::S85–106
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. Pomerantz JR, Pristach EA. 1989.. Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. . J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 15:(4):635–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. Potter K, Wilson A, Bremer PT, Williams D, Doutriaux C, et al. 2009.. Ensemble-Vis: a framework for the statistical visualization of ensemble data. . In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, pp. 233–40. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Recchia G, Schneider CR, Freeman ALJ. 2021.. How do the UK public interpret COVID-19 test results? Comparing the impact of official information about results and reliability used in the UK, USA and New Zealand: a randomised controlled trial. . BMJ Open 11:(5):e047731
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Reuters Fact Check. 2021.. Fact check—UK vaccine report still includes data comparing COVID-19 rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated. . Reuters Fact Check Blog, Nov. 11. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-britain-idUSL1N2S219H
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Ritov I, Baron J. 1992.. Status-quo and omission biases. . J. Risk Uncertain. 5:(1):49–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. Romano A, Sotis C, Dominioni G, Guidi S. 2020.. The scale of COVID-19 graphs affects understanding, attitudes, and policy preferences. . Health Econ. 29:(11):1482–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. R. Soc. 2012.. Science as an open enterprise. Rep. , R. Soc., London:
  92. Ruginski IT, Boone AP, Padilla LM, Liu L, Heydari N, et al. 2016.. Non-expert interpretations of hurricane forecast uncertainty visualizations. . Spat. Cogn. Comput. 16:(2):154–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. Rutter H, Parker S, Stahl-Timmins W, Noakes C, Smyth A, et al. 2021.. Visualising SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and mitigations. . BMJ 375::e065312
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. 1988.. Status quo bias in decision making. . J. Risk Uncertain. 1:(1):7–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Savadori L, Ronzani P, Sillari G, Di Bucci D, Dolce M. 2022.. Communicating seismic risk information: the effect of risk comparisons on risk perception sensitivity. . Front. Commun. 7::743172
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. Scaife M, Rogers Y. 1996.. External cognition: How do graphical representations work?. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 45:(2):185–213
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, et al. 2021a.. COVID-19 risk perception: a longitudinal analysis of its predictors and associations with health protective behaviours in the United Kingdom. . J. Risk Res. 24::294–313
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. Schneider CR, Freeman ALJ, Spiegelhalter D, van der Linden S. 2021b.. The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: two randomised controlled trials. . PLOS ONE 16:(11):e0259048
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. Schneider CR, Freeman ALJ, Spiegelhalter D, van der Linden S. 2022.. The effects of communicating scientific uncertainty on trust and decision making in a public health context. . Judgm. Decis. Mak. 17:(4):849–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Schünemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA, Mustafa RA, Meerpohl JJ, et al. 2019.. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. . J. Clin. Epidemiol. 111::105–14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Schünemann HJ, Santesso N, Vist GE, Cuello C, Lotfi T, et al. 2020.. Using GRADE in situations of emergencies and urgencies: certainty in evidence and recommendations matters during the COVID-19 pandemic, now more than ever and no matter what. . J. Clin. Epidemiol. 127::202–7
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. Sense About Science. 2022.. What counts? A scoping inquiry into how well the government's evidence for Covid-19 decisions served society. Rep. , Sense About Science, London:
  103. Shoots-Reinhard B, Lawrence ER, Schulkin J, Peters E. 2022.. Excluding numeric side-effect information produces lower vaccine intentions. . Vaccine 40:(31):4262–69
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Slovic P, Peters E. 2006.. Risk perception and affect. . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15:(6):322–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane ML, MacGregor DG. 2005.. Affect, risk, and decision making. . Health Psychol. 24:(4S):S35–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. Spiegelhalter DJ. 2017a.. Risk and uncertainty communication. . Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 4::31–60
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. Spiegelhalter DJ. 2017b.. Trust in numbers. . J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 180:(4):948–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Spiegelhalter DJ. 2020a.. Should we trust algorithms?. Harvard Data Sci. Rev. 2:(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.cb91a35a
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Spiegelhalter DJ. 2020b.. Use of “normal” risk to improve understanding of dangers of covid-19. . BMJ 370::m3259
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Spiegelhalter DJ, Riesch H. 2011.. Don't know, can't know: embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 369::4730–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. Stahl-Timmins W. 2021.. The eyes have it: getting the gist of covid-19 transmission. . BMJ 375::n2978
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, et al. 2016.. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. . BMJ 355::i4919
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. Stoknes PE. 2014.. Rethinking climate communications and the “psychological climate paradox. .” Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1::161–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. Sui J, Rotshtein P. 2019.. Self-prioritization and the attentional systems. . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 29::148–52
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  115. Suri G, Sheppes G, Schwartz C, Gross JJ. 2013.. Patient inertia and the status quo bias: when an inferior option is preferred. . Psychol. Sci. 24:(9):1763–69
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. Taufique KMR, Vocino A, Polonsky MJ. 2017.. The influence of eco-label knowledge and trust on pro-environmental consumer behaviour in an emerging market. . J. Strateg. Mark. 25:(7):511–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. Taylor S, Asmundson GJG. 2021.. Negative attitudes about facemasks during the COVID-19 pandemic: the dual importance of perceived ineffectiveness and psychological reactance. . PLOS ONE 16:(2):e0246317
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Teigen KH. 2022.. Dimensions of uncertainty communication: what is conveyed by verbal terms and numeric ranges. . Curr. Psychol. 42::2912237
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. Thompson MA, Lindsay JM, Gaillard JC. 2015.. The influence of probabilistic volcanic hazard map properties on hazard communication. . J. Appl. Volcanol. 4::6
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Tufte ER. 1983.. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT:: Graphics
  121. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1974.. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. . Science 185:(4157):1124–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  122. UK Gov. 2021.. SAGE 90 minutes: coronavirus (COVID-19) response, 27 May 2021. Rep. , SAGE, London:. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-90-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-27-may-2021/sage-90-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-27-may-2021
  123. UK Health Secur. Agency. 2021.. COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report—week 44. Rep. , UK Health Secur. Agency, London:. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032671/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_44.pdf
  124. UK Sci. Technol. Sel. Comm. Oral Evid. 2021.. Oral evidence: UK science, research and technology capability and influence in global disease outbreaks. Meeting Transcript, March 9 , UK Parliam., London:. https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1845/html/
  125. van der Bles AM, van der Linden S, Freeman ALJ, Mitchell J, Galvao AB, et al. 2019.. Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. . R. Soc. Open Sci. 6:(5):181870
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  126. van der Bles AM, van der Linden S, Freeman ALJ, Spiegelhalter DJ. 2020.. The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. . PNAS 117:(14):7672–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. Veit W, Brown R, Earp BD. 2021.. In science we trust? Being honest about the limits of medical research during COVID-19. . Am. J. Bioeth. 21:(1):22–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  128. Visschers VHMM, Meertens RM, Passchier WWFF, De Vries NNKK. 2009.. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. . Risk Anal. 29:(2):267–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. Vraga EK, Jacobsen KH. 2020.. Strategies for effective health communication during the coronavirus pandemic and future emerging infectious disease events. . World Med. Health Policy 12:(3):233–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Byram S, Fischhoff B, Welch HG. 2000.. A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study. . Med. Decis. Mak. 20:(3):298–307
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. Zhang Y, Sun Y, Padilla L, Barua S, Bertini E, Parker A. 2021.. Mapping the landscape of COVID-19 crisis visualizations. . In CHI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040722-052011
Loading
Communication of Statistics and Evidence in Times of Crisis
Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 11, 1 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040722-052011
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040722-052011
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040722-052011
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error