Multicriteria mapping manual: version 1.0

This Manual offers basic advice on how to do multicriteria mapping (MCM). It suggests how to: go about designing and building a typical MCM project; engage with participants and analyse results – and get the most out of the online MCM tool. Key terms are shown in bold italics and defined and explained in a final Annex. The online MCM software tool provides its own operational help. So this Manual is more focused on the general approach. There are no rigid rules. MCM is structured, but very flexible. It allows many more detailed features than can be covered here. MCM users are encouraged to think for themselves and be responsible and creative

Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit–risk assessments of medicinal products

Background The PROTECT Benefit–Risk group is dedicated to research in methods for continuous benefit–risk monitoring of medicines, including the presentation of the results, with a particular emphasis on graphical methods. Methods A comprehensive review was performed to identify visuals used for medical risk and benefit–risk communication. The identified visual displays were grouped into visual types, and each visual type was appraised based on five criteria: intended audience, intended message, knowledge required to understand the visual, unintentional messages that may be derived from the visual and missing information that may be needed to understand the visual. Results Sixty-six examples of visual formats were identified from the literature and classified into 14 visual types. We found that there is not one single visual format that is consistently superior to others for the communication of benefit–risk information. In addition, we found that most of the drawbacks found in the visual formats could be considered general to visual communication, although some appear more relevant to specific formats and should be considered when creating visuals for different audiences depending on the exact message to be communicated. Conclusion We have arrived at recommendations for the use of visual displays for benefit–risk communication. The recommendation refers to the creation of visuals. We outline four criteria to determine audience–visual compatibility and consider these to be a key task in creating any visual. Next we propose specific visual formats of interest, to be explored further for their ability to address nine different types of benefit–risk analysis information

On the Effective Communication of the Results of Empirical Studies, Part II

In an important and certainly timely article published in the N.Y. U. Law Review, Nancy C. Staudt demonstrates that, in taxpayer standing cases, judges are motivated by politics but can be constrained when the law is clear and oversight exists. As part of that demonstration, Professor Staudt offers an empirical analysis of the decision to grant standing to federal taxpayers-the results of which we reproduce in Table 1.2 What are we to make of this rather ominous-looking table? Professor Staudt suggests two key takeaways. First, the analysis, she reports, shows that doctrine helps explain standing decisions even when political factors are taken into account. Both legal variables ( Spending and Spending and Establishment Clause ) are statistically significant, controlling for all other factors listed in the table. Second, she finds an important role for the politics of the plaintiff: Judges are more likely to grant standing to a liberal plaintiff, regardless of their own political leanings. No doubt, the data support Professor Staudt\u27s claim about the importance of politics. The asterisk on the Plaintiff Politics variable, for example, tells us that a statistically significant relationship exists between a plaintiffs political ideology and the decision to grant standing

On the Effective Communication of the Results of Empirical Studies, Part II

In an important and certainly timely article published in the N.Y. U. Law Review, Nancy C. Staudt demonstrates that, in taxpayer standing cases, judges are motivated by politics but can be constrained when the law is clear and oversight exists. As part of that demonstration, Professor Staudt offers an empirical analysis of the decision to grant standing to federal taxpayers-the results of which we reproduce in Table 1.2 What are we to make of this rather ominous-looking table? Professor Staudt suggests two key takeaways. First, the analysis, she reports, shows that doctrine helps explain standing decisions even when political factors are taken into account. Both legal variables ( Spending and Spending and Establishment Clause ) are statistically significant, controlling for all other factors listed in the table. Second, she finds an important role for the politics of the plaintiff: Judges are more likely to grant standing to a liberal plaintiff, regardless of their own political leanings. No doubt, the data support Professor Staudt\u27s claim about the importance of politics. The asterisk on the Plaintiff Politics variable, for example, tells us that a statistically significant relationship exists between a plaintiffs political ideology and the decision to grant standing

Visualising harms in publications of randomised controlled trials: consensus and recommendations

OBJECTIVE: To improve communication of harm in publications of randomised controlled trials via the development of recommendations for visually presenting harm outcomes. DESIGN: Consensus study. SETTING: 15 clinical trials units registered with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, an academic population health department, Roche Products, and The BMJ. PARTICIPANTS: Experts in clinical trials: 20 academic statisticians, one industry statistician, one academic health economist, one data graphics designer, and two clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME: measures A methodological review of statistical methods identified visualisations along with those recommended by consensus group members. Consensus on visual recommendations was achieved (at least 60% of the available votes) over a series of three meetings with participants. The participants reviewed and critically appraised candidate visualisations against an agreed framework and voted on whether to endorse each visualisation. Scores marginally below this threshold (50-60%) were revisited for further discussions and votes retaken until consensus was reached. RESULTS: 28 visualisations were considered, of which 10 are recommended for researchers to consider in publications of main research findings. The choice of visualisations to present will depend on outcome type (eg, binary, count, time-to-event, or continuous), and the scenario (eg, summarising multiple emerging events or one event of interest). A decision tree is presented to assist trialists in deciding which visualisations to use. Examples are provided of each endorsed visualisation, along with an example interpretation, potential limitations, and signposting to code for implementation across a range of standard statistical software. Clinician feedback was incorporated into the explanatory information provided in the recommendations to aid understanding and interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Visualisations provide a powerful tool to communicate harms in clinical trials, offering an alternative perspective to the traditional frequency tables. Increasing the use of visualisations for harm outcomes in clinical trial manuscripts and reports will provide clearer presentation of information and enable more informative interpretations. The limitations of each visualisation are discussed and examples of where their use would be inappropriate are given. Although the decision tree aids the choice of visualisation, the statistician and clinical trial team must ultimately decide the most appropriate visualisations for their data and objectives. Trialists should continue to examine crude numbers alongside visualisations to fully understand harm profiles

Multicriteria mapping manual - version 2.0

Multicriteria mapping (MCM) is an interactive appraisal method for exploring contrasting perspectives on complex strategic and policy issues. The tool aims to help 'open up' technical assessment by systematically 'mapping' the practical implications of alternative options, issues, uncertainties and values. MCM uniquely bridges qualitative and quantitative approaches, and helps to get the best of both. It allows great flexibility, offering an appraisal method that is strongly grounded in theory but highly unconstrained in practice. This versatility has been reflected in its use internationally to explore contentious decisions in the fields of energy strategy, food production, environmental policy, radioactive waste management and public health. This MCM Manual offers basic advice on how to do multicriteria mapping. It suggests how to: design and build a typical MCM project; engage with participants; and analyse results – and get the most out of the online MCM tool. The online MCM software tool provides its own operational help so the manual is more focused on the general approach

Rhetoric of Global Warming: Multimodal Arguments in Public and Scientific Contexts

Public opinion about scientific issues guides behavior and policy decisions with local and global ramifications. This report analyzes techniques for communicating about scientific issues used in visual media aimed at two distinct audiences, scientific communities and the public. It compares their practices in samples from the current issue of global warming, using an article from the journal Nature as an example of scientific communication and the popular documentary An Inconvenient Truth as an example of public argumentation

What is the message? Perspectives on Visual Data Communication

Data visualizations are used to communicate messages to diverse audiences. It is unclear whether interpretations of these visualizations match the messages their creators aim to convey. In a mixed-methods study, we investigate how data in the popular science magazine Scientific American are visually communicated and understood. We first analyze visualizations about climate change and pandemics published in the magazine over a fifty-year period. Acting as chart readers, we then interpret visualizations with and without textual elements, identifying takeaway messages and creating field notes. Finally, we compare a sample of our interpreted messages to the intended messages of chart producers, drawing on interviews conducted with magazine staff. These data allow us to explore understanding visualizations through three perspectives: that of the charts, visualization readers, and visualization producers. Building on our findings from a thematic analysis, we present in-depth insights into data visualization sensemaking, particularly regarding the role of messages and textual elements; we propose a message typology, and we consider more broadly how messages can be conceptualized and understood