# Table 4 Participants’ mean scores (with standard deviations within parentheses) on the primary and secondary outcome measures as a function of tailoring (tailored vs. generic risks) and message format (verbal-only vs. verbal and numerical combined) for low probability rate risks

Measures Verbal-only “common” Verbal and numerical combined “common, 10 out of 100”
Generic Tailored Total Generic Tailored Total
Primary measures
Estimation of probability1 (in %) 64.8 (20.1) 70.1 (19.6)a** 67.5 (19.8) 34.3 (29.9) 32.9 (30.8) 33.6 (30.4)c***
Accuracy of estimation of probability2 (in %) 54.8 (20.1) 60.1 (19.6)a*** 57.5 (19.9) 24.9 (29.4) 23.7 (30.2) 24.3 (29.7)c***
Perceived likelihood of occurrence3 4.41 (1.09) 4.46 (1.01) 4.49 (1.05) 3.25 (1.52) 3.23 (1.57) 3.24 (1.55)c***
Secondary measures
Perceived personal relevance4 3.16 (0.74) 3.46 (0.81)a*** 3.34 (0.78) 3.19 (0.97) 3.40 (0.91)b*** 3.30 (0.94)
Perceived uncertainty5 2.90 (1.19) 2.59 (1.19)a* 2.75 (1.19) 3.13 (1.50) 3.31 (1.47) 3.18 (1.49)
1. 1“What do you think is the probability you will experience this side effect” (percentage between 0 and 100%)
2. 2The absolute difference between the actual risk of each side effect occurring and each participant’s estimated risk (scores closer to zero are more accurate)
3. 3“How likely is it that you will experience this side effect?” (1 = not likely at all, 6 = very likely)
4. 4“The risk information about the side effect was made personally for me” and “The way how the risk information was being presented was relevant to me” (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree, α = .87)
5. 5“How uncertain do you think is this likelihood of experiencing this side effect after chemotherapy?” (1 = not at all, 6 = extremely)
6. aMean differs significantly compared to generic risk within verbal-only risk condition
7. bMean differs significantly compared to generic risk within verbal and numerical combined condition
8. cMean differs significantly compared to total verbal-only risk; *p < .01, **p = .001, ***p < .001