Quantitative PDA improves understanding and confidence versus qualitative PDA in dysplastic nevus screeningQuantitative tool improves understanding of dysplastic nevus risk

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology Published June 1, 2026 Study authors: Roland-McGowan Jaclyn N, Ose Oscar M, Yu Yun, Latour Emile, Berry Elizabeth, Leachman Sancy A, Carro… PubMed ↗ DOI ↗ Editorial oversight: Dr. Amelia Tan, PhD · Internal Medicine & Chronic Disease

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway

Consider Quantitative PDA to improve understanding and confidence in dysplastic nevus screening.

This randomized A/B testing study evaluated the impact of Quantitative PDA versus Qualitative PDA on patient outcomes in 600 US adults with dysplastic nevus. The primary outcomes assessed included self-reported understanding, risk perception, confidence, and treatment intent. No follow-up duration was reported for this study.

Quantitative PDA improved self-reported understanding compared to Qualitative PDA, with a median score of 80 versus 72. This difference was statistically significant with a P value of .008. Quantitative PDA also improved confidence compared to Qualitative PDA, with a P value of .003. Additionally, Quantitative PDA lowered perceived melanoma risk for monitoring and for excision, with P values of .003 and less than .001 respectively.

Regarding treatment intent, Quantitative PDA did not change excision intent compared to Qualitative PDA. The absolute numbers for excision intent were 52% versus 53%, with an odds ratio of 1.04 and a 95% CI of 0.75-1.43. The P value for this comparison was .818. Dysplastic nevus severity significantly increased excision intent, with rates of 31% for mild, 41% for moderate, and 72% for severe lesions. This trend was significant with a P value of less than .001.

Safety data, including adverse events and discontinuations, were not reported. The study design was a randomized A/B testing study. The findings suggest that Quantitative PDA may enhance patient understanding and confidence without altering excision intent in this population.

This study tested a new way to explain the risk of dysplastic nevi, which are atypical moles that can sometimes lead to melanoma. Researchers compared a quantitative tool, which uses numbers and percentages, with a qualitative tool, which uses descriptive language, for 600 US adults.

The study found that the quantitative tool improved people's understanding of their risk and their confidence in that understanding. It also lowered their perceived risk of melanoma for both monitoring and excision. However, the tool did not change people's intent to have a mole removed, which was about the same for both tools.

A key finding was that the severity of the dysplastic nevus itself strongly influenced removal intent, with severe cases leading to much higher intent. The study did not report any safety concerns, as it was about communication tools, not medical treatments.

The main reason to be careful is that this was a communication study, not a treatment study. It shows a link between a tool and understanding, but it does not prove that using this tool will change medical decisions or outcomes.

What this means for you:

A number-based tool helped people understand mole risk better but did not change their intent to remove a mole.

Study Details

Study typeRct

EvidenceLevel 2

PublishedJun 2026

PMID41893389

View Original Abstract ↓

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PDAs) support shared decision-making by presenting treatment options clearly and objectively. However, little is known about how risk framing and diagnostic severity labels influence patient preferences in dermatology. OBJECTIVE: Assess how PDA format (quantitative vs qualitative) and dysplastic nevus severity (mild, moderate, or severe) affect understanding, risk perception, confidence, and treatment intent. METHODS: In this randomized A/B testing design, 600 US adults viewed a quantitative or qualitative PDA describing a mild, moderate, or severe dysplastic nevus scenario. Self-reported outcomes included understanding, treatment selection (excision vs monitoring), satisfaction, decision-making confidence, perceived melanoma risk, and concern. Analyses used nonparametric tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: Quantitative PDAs improved self-reported understanding (median 80 vs 72; P = .008) and confidence (P = .003) and lowered perceived melanoma risk for monitoring (P = .003) and excision (P < .001), but did not change excision intent (52% vs 53%; odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.75-1.43; P = .818). Dysplastic nevus severity significantly increased excision intent (31% mild, 41% moderate, 72% severe; P < .001), without affecting understanding. CONCLUSION: Quantitative PDAs enhance comprehension, yet diagnostic severity labels predominantly drive treatment intent. Approximately one-third of participants diverged from expert recommendations despite high comprehension, underscoring that individual values drive treatment choices.

Quantitative PDA improves understanding and confidence versus qualitative PDA in dysplastic nevus screeningQuantitative tool improves understanding of dysplastic nevus risk

Study Details

Guselkumab Phase III trials validate 3VAS and 4VAS measures for psoriatic arthritis disease activity assessment

Study checks how well pain scores track joint damage in psoriatic arthritis patients

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Quantitative PDA improves understanding and confidence versus qualitative PDA in dysplastic nevus screeningQuantitative tool improves understanding of dysplastic nevus risk

Study Details

Guselkumab Phase III trials validate 3VAS and 4VAS measures for psoriatic arthritis disease activity assessment

Study checks how well pain scores track joint damage in psoriatic arthritis patients

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Related in Dermatology

From Other Specialties