Visual aids for communicating cancer treatment paths: A questionnaire study
===========================================================================

* Helena Klara Jambor
* Julian Ketges
* Anna Lea Otto
* Malte von Bonin
* Karolin Trautmann-Grill
* Raphael Teipel
* Jan Moritz Middeke
* Maria Uhlig
* Martin Eichler
* Sebastian Pannasch
* Martin Bornhäuser

## Abstract

**Objectives** To evaluate legibility, comprehension, and clinical usability of visual aids to communicate cancer treatment paths.

**Design** Questionnaire study. Two open-label, cross-sectional questionnaires, a single-centered, patient questionnaire.

**Setting** Two online questionnaires, one in-person questionnaire (patients with haematological neoplasms at the University Hospital Dresden, Germany).

**Participants** Online questionnaires included 306 and 160 participants respectively (18 to >60 yrs). Clinical evaluation included 30 patients (44 to 72 yrs), 11 were re-surveyed, 24 responses from attending physicians.

**Main Outcome Measures** Participants ability to understand cancer treatment paths with audio information, or supplemented with two formats of visual aids; to comprehend visual representations for key treatment terms; patients ability to understand and recall their cancer treatment path.

**Results** Visual aids, pictogram- or text-based, significantly improved participants response quality (mean response quality 0.81 pictogram/0.84 text, audio: 0.68, p< 0.001), increased response confidence (mean confidence 0.84 pictogram/0.86 text, audio: 0.66, p< 0.001), and information was rated higher (mean information quality rating 0.85 pictogram/0.82 text, audio: 0.71, p< 0.001). In the visual aids, key terms were encoded with visual representations. 7/8 terms were comprehensible as pictograms (>85% transparency), fewer when encoded as comics or photos (5/8 and 4/8 >85% transparency). Comprehensibility is term-specific, i.e., no pictogram tested significantly more understandable than comic, 3 were more comprehensible than photos (p < 0.001). In clinical questionnaires, patients were able to comprehend information about treatment paths (mean response quality 0.82) and recall this (mean response quality 0.71 after several weeks). Patients (n=30) and physicians (n=24) rated the visual aids as very or partially helpful.

**Conclusions** Visual aids to communicate cancer treatment path information are legible and increase short- and long-term comprehension. Patients and physicians welcome integration of visual aids to supplement communication about cancer treatments.

**Ethics review** Patient interviews were reviewed by TU Dresden ethics board (BO-EK-338072022).

## Introduction

The National Academy of Medicine/USA defines high-quality care as encompassing safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity 1. Important for patient-centeredness and equity is an effective communication between health care providers and patients 2– 4. Comprehensible information and patients’ health literacy, i.e. the ability to understand written and verbal medical information about diagnosis, prognosis, uncertainties and risks, are important in shared decision-making 5. However, mismatches in numeracy, literacy, and experience frequently challenge physicians communication with patients 6. Around 10% of the global population is estimated to lack basic literacy and, at a lower percentage, also numeracy skills, and even among those with high school education, adults have comprehension difficulties 7–9. Additionally, medical teams often encounter non-native speakers and patients with cognitive decline due to age or neurotoxic therapies, raising concerns about their understanding of treatment regimens for informed decision-making and further challenging the process 5.

Health literacy gaps are well-documented obstacles to equitability in care. Consent forms are frequently written in inaccessible language and illegible print 3,10. Likewise, verbal communication is often overly complex, with medical teams often overestimating patients’ literacy levels 11–14. This complexity is exacerbated when discussing intricate medical information, such as cancer treatments 15–17. Consequently, studies consistently find that patients tend to recall only half of their medical information 17–22, leading to implications for patients safety, treatment adherence and health outcomes 12,23,24.

Visual aids have proven to be beneficial for understanding the data, especially in the case of risks, uncertainties, and numerical information 25–27. In health care, visual aids are beneficial when promoting healthy choices to improving treatment adherence and risk-avoidance 28–32. Information that is supplemented by comics or pictograms measurably enhances health understanding and is perceived as helpful by patients 30,33,34. This approach is particularly helpful for vulnerable and non-native speaking patients, with whom visual aids are more effective even than translations 30,33. Despite their advantages, visual aids are underutilized in patient communication. The overall aim of this study was to develop and evaluate visual aids for communicating treatment paths in cancer therapy using three haematological neoplasms as case studies.

## Methods

To develop visual aids in the form of visual treatment paths for patients with haematological neoplasm (figure 1, supplementary figure 1), we assessed the information needs by observing outpatient consultations as well as via meetings with patients, patient board, and clinicians, and guides for patient treatment plans and schedules 35. This revealed the time-course of treatment, the sequence of interventions, and their settings (hospital stay or outpatient care) as relevant areas for visual aids. In existing public information from national cancer institutes and cancer charities in the USA, UK, and Germany visual information was scarce in the text-heavy brochures, and mostly limited to photos and anatomical illustrations (supplementary table 1). Only 3 of the 44 figures provided some information on the treatment course 36. We therefore used an iterative design approach 37–40 consisting of three questionnaires to develop a visual aid to communicate cancer treatment paths. In the first step, we used questionnaire 1 to assess participants comprehension when receiving either audio only, or supplemented with text- or pictogram-based visual aids. Next, we compared the legibility of different visual representations for key terms with the help of questionnaire 2. Finally, based on questionnaire 3, the visual aids for treatment paths with patients were evaluated.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F1)

Figure 1. 
Example of a visual treatment plan co-designed with patients and evaluated for comprehension with participants and patients. Multiple myeloma treatment with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation.

### Questionnaire 1 – Comparing information delivery formats for cancer treatment paths

To compare the effectiveness of three formats for delivering information on cancer treatment paths, we quantified participants response qualities using a between-subject design (figure 2A). Participants were randomly assigned into one of the three arms each with a different independent variable: i. audio only (scenario in current patient consultation), ii. audio with pictogram-based visual aids, or iii. audio with text-based visual aids (questionnaire materials in German available at : [https://osf.io/wkqb4/](https://osf.io/wkqb4/), DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/WKQB4). Participants in arm ii and iii could use visual aids for answering questions. After a 2-minute audio information on a treatment path, participants answered 10 content questions, each followed by a question on their confidence in answering (rating scale, “How confident are you in your answer?”). We monitored the response times overall, and per question. After the completion, participants were asked to rate the quality of the received information. We included a question on prior health education to monitor a potential selection bias. The study was preregistered at OSF ([https://osf.io/t2gkq](https://osf.io/t2gkq)).

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F2)

Figure 2. Flowcharts of results of the questionnaire studies.

### Questionnaire 2 - Transparency and translucency of visual representations

Essential for designing a visual aid is the identification of suitable visual representations to encode the key terms. We have selected pictograms for the visual aids for treatment paths as they are widely used e.g., in public transport 39, have been integrated in health information 31,41,42, and are highly rated by patients 34,43,44. However, given their high abstraction level, pictograms must be evaluated before use with the target audience 45. By ANSI (American National Standards Institute) requirements, only visuals that are recognizable by at least 85% of participants fulfil the criteria for being self-explanatory and helpful 45. Alternative visual representations are photographs and comics, which, however, may contain irrelevant information, e.g., gender of medical professional, overemphasize details (comics). To compare visual representations, we designed a one-factorial (phase) within-subjects design (figure 2B). In each phase, eight terms (MD, hospital, patient/person, infusion, infusion therapy, pill, syringe, blood) were shown in three different visual representations (pictogram, comic, photo, see figure available at [https://osf.io/m6cj9](https://osf.io/m6cj9)). To minimize the order effect, the visual representations were shown in random order. The participants were required to answer questions on the transparency (phase 1) and translucency (phase 2) of the visual representations. To assess transparency (guessability, Question: *“What is the meaning of the prompted visual?”*), participants were required to enter free text to describe a visual representation with one term. To examine translucency (Question: *“Is the prompted visual suitable for term?”*), participants assessed the suitability of the visual representation and its term on a scale from 1-7 (1-4: not appropriate; 5-7: appropriate). The study was preregistered at OSF ([https://osf.io/cs57n](https://osf.io/cs57n)).

### Questionnaire 3 – Clinical evaluation of visual aids

We evaluated the clinal usability of visual aids for cancer treatment path communication with a non-blinded, open-label patient questionnaire (figure 2C). The questionnaire was a paper-based, in-person questionnaire with five multiple-choice content questions, three questions with rating scales (5-step Likert scale, usefulness of the visual aid), and one free text question (*“How did you use the plan at home?”*). Patients treated for multiple myeloma were additionally invited to the re-survey when returning for a scheduled stem cell apheresis. The questionnaire was piloted and validated with MDs and patient members of the patient board of the National Center for Tumor Diseases/NCT-Dresden. The clinical evaluation, including the patients consent form, was approved by the TU Dresden ethics board (BO-EK-338072022).

### Data collection, participants

The online, open-label cohort questionnaires were administered using LimeSurvey software, in German, and were piloted to validate questions and solve technical issues. Online participants were recruited via social media, notice boards, and university mailing-lists. Participants had to provide informed consent, agree to anonymous responses being used for research, were provided with contact information of researchers, and the opportunity to withdraw. Inclusion criteria were ability to understand, read and write in German. No personal data was collected. We determined the sample sizes with a priori power analyses. In order to obtain reliable differences in response quality for questionnaires 1 and 2, we set the desired statistical power at 0.8 and chose an alpha level of 0.05 and, given the lack of previous studies, assumed only a medium effect size of 0.25 (questionnaire 1) and 0.1 (questionnaire 2). This revealed a required sample size of 159 for questionnaire 1 and a required sample size of 259 for questionnaire 2. No statistical tests were planned for the clinical evaluation with patients. 160 participants were included in the analysis of the effect of visual aids (mean age 38, table 1). In the comparison of visual representations, 306 participants were included with a mean age of 39 (table 1).

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/T1)

Table 1. Cohort descriptions

For the clinical evaluation, we collected responses from patients with haematological neoplasms treated at the Medical Clinic 1, University Hospital Dresden, Germany, and the attending MDs. All patients treated for multiple myeloma with autologous stem cell transplantation, allogeneic stem cell transplantation or CAR-T cell therapy were eligible for participation. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of a hematologic neoplasm, age ≥ 18 years at diagnosis, attended at the University Hospital Dresden, ability to give consent; exclusion criteria were inability to complete a structured questionnaire, e.g., in the presence of comorbid dementia, insufficient language skills, illiteracy. Patients were informed on purpose and design of the study as well as familiarized with visual aids for treatment path communication during the consultation. After giving consent, patients were informed by the MD about the treatment procedure with the visual aid (figure 1, supplementary figure 1) before answering the questionnaire. 30 patients (table 1) and 24 attending MDs were included; patients treated for multiple myeloma return to the hospital for stem cell apheresis, at which time point we re-surveyed 11 available patients.

### Statistical analysis and data visualization

After data export, the statistical analysis of online questionnaires was done with SPSS Version 28.0.0.0. For testing effectiveness of the different cancer paths information formats, we assessed the quality of the participants’ answers to all questions (ratio of the correct answers of the individual participants to a total of 10 multiple-choice questions), the response quality for each question (sum of correct answers across all participants per question), the participants self-assessed answering confidence per question with 4-step Likert scale (“How confident are you in your answer?”) and the time for answering content and, as control, confidence questions. After completion, participants were asked to rate the overall quality of the received treatment information (4-step Likert scale). For testing the understandability of the visual representations, we assessed their transparency (guessability, participants were required to add free text description of visual) with a syntax of all correct descriptors (terms not part of the syntax were considered as not correct) and summarized the frequency of correct answers. To assess translucency (Question: *“Is the prompted visual suitable for term?”*) of visual representations, we then counted the frequency of participants rating the visual representation as appropriate. For the clinical evaluation, the frequencies of answers were summarized with descriptive statistical methods. Figures were prepared using R and ggplot2, version 4.3.2 46,47.

### Patient and Public Involvement

Our work was supported by the patient board of the National Center for Tumor Diseases/NCT-Dresden, which also includes former patients. The planned work and its progress was presented to the entire board. A project advisory group of three board members was also involved in reviewing and piloting the questionnaire and provided helpful input on the design of visual aids. The ongoing project was presented publicly at “patient day’s” organized by the National Center for Tumor Diseases.

## Results

Based on consultations with the patient board, medical teams, and feedback from our target audience 6, we iteratively developed visual aids that communicate the cancer treatment path to patients (figure 1). To evaluate the effectiveness of these visual aids, we: (1) assessed patients’ comprehension of treatment paths information with or without these visual aids; (2) tested the clarity of the pictograms used; and (3) tested their use in a clinical setting.

## Questionnaire 1 – Comparing information delivery formats for cancer treatment paths

We compared participants’ ability to understand cancer treatment path information presented as audio-only or with two different formats of visual aids (figure 2A, figure 1, see supplementary figure DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/WKQB4). Compared to participants who received only audio information, simulating a typical patient consultation, those who also received visual aids demonstrated significantly higher response quality overall when answering content question (figure 3A, 0.84/0.82 compared to audio 0.68). The response quality was not statistically different between participants receiving text-based and pictogram-based (table 2A) visual aids. Participants with visual aids not only were quantitatively better in answering content questions, but also subjectively indicated feeling more confident their answers were correct (figure 3B, 0.78/0.82 compared to audio 0.55) and also rated the quality of the information higher (figure 3D, 0.79/0.76 compared to audio 0.62). Overall the groups with visual aids were slightly, but significantly, slower in their response times than participants with audio information only (figure 3C, table 2A, supplementary table 2, 21.4/21.7 seconds compare to audio 14.2 seconds). This slower response time may indicate that participants indeed used the visual aids for answering questions. While slower with content questions, the time required for rating their answering confidence was comparable, and not statistically different among all three groups (figure 3E, 4.1/4.8/5.1 seconds). Thus, while slightly slower in responding, the groups with visual aids, both text and pictogram-based, had significantly improved overall response quality, and also higher response quality for individual questions (figure 3F).

View this table:
[Table 2A.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/T2)

Table 2A. 
Summary of results from comparing information delivery formats for cancer treatment paths. Included participants: 160

View this table:
[Table 2B](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/T3)

Table 2B 
Summary of transparency and translucency of visual representations Included participants: 306

View this table:
[Table 2C](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/T4)

Table 2C 
Statistical tests transparency of visual representations Included participants: 306

View this table:
[Table 2D](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/T5)

Table 2D 
Summary of results clinical evaluation of visual aids

View this table:
[Table 2E](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/T6)

Table 2E 
Summary of changing response quality in clinical evaluation of visual aids

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F3)

Figure 3. Comparing information delivery formats for cancer treatment paths
Visual aids (pictogram- and text-based) improved overall response quality (**A**) and increased respondents security (**B**) and response times (**C**), and were rated higher in information clarity (**D**). Response times for content questions varied, while the times for the control questions were similar across groups (**E**). Response qualities split for question 1 to 10 (**F**). Participants: 160.

### Questionnaire 2 - Transparency and translucency of visual representations

We compared pictograms to comics and photos in their effectiveness to communicate medical term (figure 2B). We tested eight terms relevant for communicating cancer treatment paths. Out of the eight terms, six pictograms, five comic representations, and four photos were correctly identified (guessed) by at least 85% of participants, and thus fulfilled the transparency criterion of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) of being comprehensible/guessable to at least 85% of participants (figure 4A, table 2B,C). Seven of eight pictograms and comics and five of eight photos were also rated as suitable by at least 85% of participants, and thus fulfilled the translucency criterion (figure 4B, Table1). Visual representations that did not pass the transparency or translucency criterion were the pictogram for “Pill” (76%), the comic for “Person” (77%), and the photos for “Hospital” (43%), “Person” (60%) and “Blood” (47%), which were neither guessable, nor considered suitable by >85% of participants, the ANSI requirements (85%) for symbols, and most are even below the somewhat more flexible standard of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) of being understood by at least 67% of users without explanatory text 45. The visual representations for “infusion therapy”, arguably a highly specific term, was guessable by only 18% of the participants, but when prompted rated as “very suitable” in all visual representations (90-94%).

![Fig 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F4.medium.gif)

[Fig 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F4)

Fig 4. Transparency and translucency of visual representations
**A**. % Transparency: can participants guess the image term? Overall, many are above the 85% mark. Highest number of icons above 85% are pictograms, then comics, lowest photos. **B**. % Translucency: do participants rate the icon as suitable for a known term? Overall, many are above the 85% mark. Highest number of icons above 85% are pictograms, then comics, lowest photos. **C-D**. Frequencies of correct answers for transparency (C) and translucency (D). Participants: 306.

This data indicates a slight skew towards pictograms and comics being more guessable and suitable, however based on our eight tested terms, no visual representation was consistently outperforming the other. “MD” and “Syringe” were equally guessable in all forms of visual representation (Chi-squared <0 / 1.1, no deviation across all visual representations, table 2C), while infusion therapy was not sufficiently guessable in any representation (table 2B). For “Hospital”, “Person”, “Infusion”, and “Blood”, pictograms were significantly more guessable than comics and/or photos as conformed by Chi-squared testing (table 2C). Only for “Pill”, comic and photo representations significantly outperformed the pictogram (table 2C). A similar result was obtained for the suitability of visual representations. Again, for “Hospital”, “Person”, and “Blood”, pictograms were rated significantly more suitable than comics and/or photos, however not only “MD” and “Syringe”, but also “Infusion” and “Infusion therapy” were rated equally suitable in all visual representations.

### Questionnaire 3 – Clinical evaluation of visual aids

Given that visual aids improved comprehension of cancer treatment paths, and that visual elements were clear to the majority of participants, including the relevant age group for haematological diseases, we next evaluated the effectiveness of visual aids in the clinic for three use-cases and three visual aids (figure 2C): patients treated for multiple myeloma with autologous stem cell transplantation (figure 1), patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation, and patients receiving CAR-T cell therapy (supplementary figure 1). We tested the visual aids in patient interviews and questioned attending MDs and patients. All MDs (n=24) fully or partially agreed that patients seem to understand the aids, and that aids were a helpful addition; almost all MDs partially or fully agreed that they were able to use visual aids without preparation and indicate that they would include aids in future communication (figure 5A). Patients (aged 44 to 72, average 58) were similarly positive, all responded that the aids helped during the interview and for answering questionnaire, and they plan to consult them again (figure 5B). For the five content questions the mean response quality was 0.82 (s.d. 0.15), with five patients answering all questions correctly (figure 6A, table 2D,E).

![Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F5)

Figure 5. Clinical evaluation of visual aids
**A**. Responses from MDs that used visual aids for treatment paths in patient interviews, n=24. **B**. Responses from patients after interview with treatment plan, n= 30. **C**. Responses from patients at re-survey several weeks after initial interview, n=11. * missing responses: patients had not spoken with any relatives about their treatment.

![Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F6.medium.gif)

[Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F6)

Figure 6. Clinical evaluation of visual aids
**A**. Patient response quality at outpatient consultation, n= 30. **B**. Patient recall response quality at re-survey when visiting for cell apheresis, n=11. **C**. Comparison of individual patients’ responses at survey and re-survey, n=11. **D**. Responses per question at survey and re-survey, n=11.

Patients with multiple myeloma return to hospital several weeks after the begin of therapy to undergo stem cell apheresis for the following autologous stem cell transplantation. At this point, and before they met the medical team, we were able to re-survey 11 patients. While we observed a drop in overall response quality to 0.71 (sd 0.23), a high recall rate, and 5/11 patients remembered the same amount as right after the interview (figure 6B-C, table 2D,E). Some questions were easier to answer than others, we therefore also analysed the response quality per question at both time points. This revealed that while we saw a drop in response quality for each question, the overall response quality was still high after several weeks, with the question with lowest response quality still correctly answered by >50% of patients (figure 6D). Patients had kept the visual aide, and still fully or partially agreed that it had helped them understand the procedure. Moreover, they indicated that they had consulted the plan at home, and, if the spoke with relatives about their treatment (4/11), used it to refresh their memory, and even send pictures/photocopies of the plan, to relatives (figure 5C).

## Discussion

In this work, we investigated to what extent visual aids communicating the treatment path can effectively supplement health care information. We used visual aids for three haematology treatments as example cases. Questionnaire results reveal that visual aids significantly enhance comprehension and increase participants confidence when responding to content questions on treatment paths. Consistent with existing literature 31,39, pictograms and comics often outperformed photo representations and were deemed suitable across various age groups, highlighting their accessibility and versatility in patient communication. Our data also show that some visual representations were not sufficiently guessable, therefore, legibility should be evaluated for each visual representation and, when used, pictograms should be combined with an explanation and a legend. In our clinical evaluation, MDs and patients positively responded to integrating visual aids in consultations, and patients remembered treatment details to correctly answer questions immediately as well as several weeks after the interview. Patient consultations take place under time pressure as staff is obliged to provide comprehensive and legally compliant information on various aspects of treatment. The American Cancer Society recommends that patients request decision aids, e.g. in the form of written treatment plans or schedules 35. Thus, visual aids for treatment paths, designed with minimal text and supplemented with pictograms, could effectively complement patient interviews.

A limitation of our study is the surveyed demographics in the clinical evaluation, as only a small number of patients were available locally during the recruitment period. The limited number of patients also meant that in this first clinical evaluation we could not randomize patients into two arms, a control and an experimental group. However, based on our initial evaluation conducted with the target audiences 6,45, and with feedback from the patient board, we conclude that the visual aids for communicating treatment paths do significantly enhance comprehension within our target group. A logical next step therefore is a multi-centric, controlled clinical trial to pave the way for clinical adoption. In an aging society haematological neoplasms among elderly is still rising 48 and treatments become more complex with advancements in patient stratification and personalized medicine 49,50, making accessible patient information even more pressing. A trial could also compare several realizations of the visual treatment plan and possibly also test measurable effects on the quality of life.

Our visual aids for treatment paths likely have broader applications, e.g. for other cancer types or other long treatment schedules. Such visual aids may also fill the information need of the elderly patients, experiencing an anxiety-inducing diagnosis 16,23,51–53 and could generally support vulnerable populations, children patients, relatives and caregivers, nurses 6. The rapid developments of AI-based tools likely will also facilitate generating visual aids from text-prompts. At times, modest measures can have profound effects, as was demonstrated by improved cancer survival when monitoring patients well-being with questionnaires 54. Patients expressed gratitude for these visual aids, treasuring them as they navigate their health care journey. The aids provide tangible answers to important questions that were also raised by the patients involved in this study, such as “How long will I be away from home?” and “How often do I come back to the hospital?”.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

## Funding statement

HKJ received a salary from a habilitation award of the Medical Faculty of the Technische Universität Dresden.

HKJ and MB received project funding from the Hochschulstiftung Medizin Dresden. MB received funding from the MSNZ program of the Deutsche Krebshilfe.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

## Funders role

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

## Data sharing

Questionnaire protocols: Pictogram questionnaire: [https://osf.io/cs57n](https://osf.io/cs57n). Visual treatment plan questionnaire: [https://osf.io/t2gkq](https://osf.io/t2gkq).

Data, as well as supporting materials (e.g., original questionnaire materials in German) are available at [https://osf.io/wkqb4/](https://osf.io/wkqb4/) (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/WKQB4).

## CREDIT

HKJ Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data Analysis, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft, Visualization, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition.

JK Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Analysis, Investigation, Review & Editing.

ALO Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Analysis, Investigation, Review & Editing.

MvB Validation, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing.

KTG Validation, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing.

RT Validation, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing.

JMM Validation, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing.

MU Validation, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing.

ME Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing.

SP Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Analysis, Supervision, Writing.

MB Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Analysis, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing, Funding Acquisition.

## Supplementary Materials

![Supplementary Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F7.medium.gif)

[Supplementary Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/F7)

Supplementary Figure 1. Additional visual aids used for the clinical evaluation (Questionnaire 3)

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/T7)

Supplementary Table 1. Existing patient information.
Comparison of public information for three haematological neoplasm therapies (MM, multiple myeloma; AlloTX, allogenic transplantation for e.g. AML patients; CAR-T, targeted immunotherapy for e.g. lymphoma patients) in USA, UK and Germany (DE). The information includes text only or few visuals with decorative character (figure of cell types, patient). In three cases a process was visualized, each without details.

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/05/2024.06.04.24308420/T8)

Supplementary Table 2. 
Summary of **questionnaire 1 – Comparing information delivery formats for cancer treatment paths**, 160 respondents.

## Acknowledgement

We thank the anonymous respondents of our survey and the medical doctors and nurse staff at the Medical Clinic 1/University hospital Dresden for participating in the clinical evaluation. We also thank the transfusion medicine (head Kristina Hölig) for scheduling the re-surveys. We thank Ava Elise Lehrach for help with digitizing questionnaire data. We thank the patient board of the NCT-UCC Dresden for feedback and support.

*   Received June 4, 2024.
*   Revision received June 4, 2024.
*   Accepted June 5, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Wolfe A. Institute of Medicine Report: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health Care System for the 21st Century. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice. 2001 Aug 1;2(3):233–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/152715440100200312&link_type=DOI) 

2.  2.General Medical Council. Decision making and consent [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Nov 28]. Available from: [https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/decision-making-and-consent](https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/decision-making-and-consent)
    
    

3.  3.Spatz ES, Krumholz HM, Moulton BW. The New Era of Informed Consent: Getting to a Reasonable-Patient Standard Through Shared Decision Making. JAMA. 2016 May 17;315(19):2063–4.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2016.3070&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27099970&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 

4.  4.Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28;(1):CD001431.
    
    

5.  5.Lipkus IM, Peters E, Kimmick G, Liotcheva V, Marcom P. Breast Cancer Patients’ Treatment Expectations after Exposure to the Decision Aid Program Adjuvant Online: The Influence of Numeracy. Med Decis Making. 2010 Jul 1;30(4):464–73.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0272989X09360371&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20160070&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000279934800007&link_type=ISI) 

6.  6.Odisho AY, Gore JL. Patient-centered approaches to creating understandable health information. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2017 Sep 1;35(9):559–63.
    
    

7.  7.Barro RJ, Lee JW. A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. Journal of Development Economics. 2013 Sep 1;104:184–98.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.10.001&link_type=DOI) 

8.  8.Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.; 2006 Sep [cited 2023 Nov 28]. Report No.: NCES 2006–483. Available from: [https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006483](https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006483)
    
    

9.  9.Roser, M., Ortiz-Ospina, E. Literacy - OurWorldInData.org [Internet]. Literacy - OurWorldInData.org. Available from: ‘[https://ourworldindata.org/literacy](https://ourworldindata.org/literacy)
    
    

10. 10.Hopper KD, TenHave TR, Tully DA, Hall TEL. The readability of currently used surgical/procedure consent forms in the United States. Surgery. 1998 May 1;123(5):496–503.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1067/msy.1998.87236&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9591001&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000073468800002&link_type=ISI) 

11. 11.Bass PFI, Wilson JF, Griffith CH, Barnett DR. Residents’ Ability to Identify Patients with Poor Literacy Skills. Academic Medicine [Internet]. 2002;77(10). Available from: [https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/fulltext/2002/10000/residentsability\_to\_identify\_patients\_with\_poor.21.aspx](https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/fulltext/2002/10000/residentsability\_to\_identify_patients_with_poor.21.aspx)
    
    

12. 12.Ha JF, Longnecker N. Doctor-Patient Communication: A Review. Ochsner J. 2010;10(1):38–43.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Njoib2Noam5sIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjEwLzEvMzgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNi8wNS8yMDI0LjA2LjA0LjI0MzA4NDIwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

13. 13.Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG, Loscalzo MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Education and Counseling. 2006 May 1;61(2):173–90.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16122896&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237899900003&link_type=ISI) 

14. 14.Kelly PA, Haidet P. Physician overestimation of patient literacy: A potential source of health care disparities. Patient Education and Counseling. 2007 Apr 1;66(1):119–22.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17140758&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000245487500017&link_type=ISI) 

15. 15.Godwin Y. Do they listen? A review of information retained by patients following consent for reduction mammoplasty. Br J Plast Surg. 2000 Mar;53(2):121–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1054/bjps.1999.3220&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10878834&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085904500007&link_type=ISI) 

16. 16.Jenkins V, Solis-Trapala I, Langridge C, Catt S, Talbot DC, Fallowfield LJ. What oncologists believe they said and what patients believe they heard: an analysis of phase I trial discussions. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 1;29(1):61–8.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjI5LzEvNjEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNi8wNS8yMDI0LjA2LjA0LjI0MzA4NDIwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

17. 17.Kessels RPC. Patients’ memory for medical information. J R Soc Med. 2003 May;96(5):219–22.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1258/jrsm.96.5.219&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12724430&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182761200004&link_type=ISI) 

18. 18.Anderson JL, Dodman S, Kopelman M, Fleming A. Patient information recall in a rheumatology clinic. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1979 Feb;18(1):18–22.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/rheumatology/18.1.18&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=311507&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1979GR16200004&link_type=ISI) 

19. 19.Blinder D, Rotenberg L, Peleg M, Taicher S. Patient compliance to instructions after oral surgical procedures. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2001 Jun 1;30(3):216–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1054/ijom.2000.0045&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11420904&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 

20. 20.Bravo BN, Postigo JML, Segura LR, Selva JPS, Trives JJR, Córcoles MJA, et al. Effect of the evaluation of recall on the rate of information recalled by patients in Primary Care. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Nov;81(2):272–4.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.022&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20197226&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 

21. 21.Laws MB, Lee Y, Taubin T, Rogers WH, Wilson IB. Factors associated with patient recall of key information in ambulatory specialty care visits: Results of an innovative methodology. PLOS ONE. 2018 Feb 1;13(2):e0191940.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 

22. 22.Ley P. Memory for medical information. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1979 Jun;18(2):245–55.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00333.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=454984&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1979HL69000016&link_type=ISI) 

23. 23.Husson O, Mols F, van de Poll-Franse LV. The relation between information provision and health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression among cancer survivors: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2011 Apr;22(4):761–72.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/annonc/mdq413&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20870912&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000289161200003&link_type=ISI) 

24. 24.Manta CJ, Ortiz J, Moulton BW, Sonnad SS. From the Patient Perspective, Consent Forms Fall Short of Providing Information to Guide Decision Making. J Patient Saf. 2021 Apr 1;17(3):e149–54.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/PTS.0000000000000310&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27490160&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 

25. 25.Franconeri SL, Padilla LM, Shah P, Zacks JM, Hullman J. The science of visual data communication: What works. Psychological Science in the public interest. 2021;22(3):110–61.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/15291006211051956&link_type=DOI) 

26. 26.Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009 Mar;28(2):210–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/a0014474&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19290713&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000264326300009&link_type=ISI) 

27. 27.Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. science. 2011;333(6048):1393–400.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMzMvNjA0OC8xMzkzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDYvMDUvMjAyNC4wNi4wNC4yNDMwODQyMC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

28. 28.Brown SM, Culver JO, Osann KE, MacDonald DJ, Sand S, Thornton AA, et al. Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates. Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Apr;83(1):92–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.027&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20554149&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 

29. 29.Cox DS, Cox AD, Sturm L, Zimet G. Behavioral interventions to increase HPV vaccination acceptability among mothers of young girls. Health Psychol. 2010 Jan;29(1):29–39.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/a0016942&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20063933&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000273757300004&link_type=ISI) 

30. 30.Delp C, Jones J. Communicating Information to Patients: The Use of Cartoon Illustrations to Improve Comprehension of Instructions. Academic Emergency Medicine. 1996;3(3):264–70.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03431.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8673784&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996TX51300016&link_type=ISI) 

31. 31.Dowse R, Ehlers MS. The evaluation of pharmaceutical pictograms in a low-literate South African population. Patient Education and Counseling. 2001 Nov 1;45(2):87–99.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00197-X&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11687321&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000172251100002&link_type=ISI) 

32. 32.Schirillo JA, Stone ER. The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Anal. 2005 Jun;25(3):555–66.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00624.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16022690&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000230468500006&link_type=ISI) 

33. 33.Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Communicating Health Risks With Visual Aids. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2013 Oct 1;22(5):392–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0963721413491570&link_type=DOI) 

34. 34.Houts PS, Witmer JT, Egeth HE, Loscalzo MJ, Zabora JR. Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions II. Patient Education and Counseling. 2001 Jun 1;43(3):231–42.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00171-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11384821&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000169378300002&link_type=ISI) 

35. 35.American Cancer Society. How Treatment Is Planned and Scheduled [Internet]. Available from: [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/managing-cancer/making-treatment-decisions/planning-scheduling-treatment.html](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/managing-cancer/making-treatment-decisions/planning-scheduling-treatment.html)
    
    

36. 36.Tominski C, Aigner W. The TimeViz Browser – A Visual Survey of Visualization Techniques for Time-Oriented Data, Version 2.0 [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 15]. Available from: [https://browser.timeviz.net/](https://browser.timeviz.net/)
    
    

37. 37.1.  Chapman P, 
    2.  Stapleton G, 
    3.  Moktefi A, 
    4.  Perez-Kriz S, 
    5.  Bellucci F
    
    Hullman J, Bach B. Picturing Science: Design Patterns in Graphical Abstracts. In: Chapman P, Stapleton G, Moktefi A, Perez-Kriz S, Bellucci F, editors. Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 183–200. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).
    
    

38. 38.Jambor HK, Bornhäuser M. Ten simple rules for designing graphical abstracts. PLOS Computational Biology. 2024 Feb 1;20(2):e1011789.
    
    

39. 39.Pedersen P, Oderkerk C, Beier S. Simplification of pharmaceutical pictograms to improve visual. Information Design Journal (IDJ). 2021 Sep;26(3):175–89.
    
    

40. 40.Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010 Mar 24;340:c332.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNDAvbWFyMjNfMS9jMzMyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDYvMDUvMjAyNC4wNi4wNC4yNDMwODQyMC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

41. 41.Reeves PT, Packett AC, Burklow CS, Echelmeyer S, Larson NS. Development and assessment of a low-health-literacy, pictographic adrenal insufficiency action plan. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Feb 23;35(2):205–15.
    
    

42. 42.Reeves PT, Kolasinski NT, Yin HS, Alqurashi W, Echelmeyer S, Chumpitazi BP, et al. Development and Assessment of a Pictographic Pediatric Constipation Action Plan. J Pediatr. 2021 Feb;229:118-126.e1.
    
    

43. 43.Houts PS, Bachrach R, Witmer JT, Tringali CA, Bucher JA, Localio RA. Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions. Patient Education and Counseling. 1998 Oct 1;35(2):83–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00065-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10026551&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000076281100002&link_type=ISI) 

44. 44.Shrestha A, Rajesh V, Dessai SS, Stanly SM, Mateti UV. Preparation, validation and user-testing of pictogram-based patient information leaflets for tuberculosis. Pulmonary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2018 Aug 1;51:26–31.
    
    

45. 45.Dowse R. Designing and reporting pictogram research: Problems, pitfalls and lessons learnt. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2021 Jun 1;17(6):1208–15.
    
    

46. 46.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. Available from: [https://www.R-project.org/](https://www.R-project.org/)
    
    

47. 47.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis [Internet]. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. Available from: [https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org](https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org)
    
    

48. 48.Wang H, Abbas KM, Abbasifard M, Abbasi-Kangevari M, Abbastabar H, Abd-Allah F, et al. Global age-sex-specific fertility, mortality, healthy life expectancy (HALE), and population estimates in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2019: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1160–203.
    
    

49. 49.Madhavan S, Subramaniam S, Brown TD, Chen JL. Art and Challenges of Precision Medicine: Interpreting and Integrating Genomic Data Into Clinical Practice. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book [Internet]. 2018 May 23 [cited 2024 Jan 15]; Available from: [https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/EDBK\_200759](https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/EDBK_200759)
    
    

50. 50.von Bonin M, Jambor HK, Teipel R, Stölzel F, Thiede C, Damm F, et al. Clonal hematopoiesis and its emerging effects on cellular therapies. Leukemia. 2021 Oct;35(10):2752–8.
    
    

51. 51.Faller H, Koch U, Brähler E, Härter M, Keller M, Schulz H, et al. Satisfaction with information and unmet information needs in men and women with cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2016 Feb;10(1):62–70.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 

52. 52.Friis LS, Elverdam B, Schmidt KG. The patient’s perspective: a qualitative study of acute myeloid leukaemia patients’ need for information and their information-seeking behaviour. Support Care Cancer. 2003 Mar;11(3):162–70.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12618926&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000181663300007&link_type=ISI) 

53. 53.Jansen J, van Weert J, van der Meulen N, van Dulmen S, Heeren T, Bensing J. Recall in Older Cancer Patients: Measuring Memory for Medical Information. The Gerontologist. 2008 Apr 1;48(2):149–57.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/geront/48.2.149&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18483427&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom) 

54. 54.Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C, et al. Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment. JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2017.7156&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28586821&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F06%2F05%2F2024.06.04.24308420.atom)