Literature DB >> 11206945

General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples.

I M Lipkus1, G Samsa, B K Rimer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Numeracy, how facile people are with basic probability and mathematical concepts, is associated with how people perceive health risks. Performance on simple numeracy problems has been poor among populations with little as well as more formal education. Here, we examine how highly educated participants performed on a general and an expanded numeracy scale. The latter was designed within the context of health risks.
METHOD: A total of 463 men and women aged 40 and older completed a 3-item general and an expanded 7-item numeracy scale. The expanded scale assessed how well people 1) differentiate and perform simple mathematical operations on risk magnitudes using percentages and proportions, 2) convert percentages to proportions, 3) convert proportions to percentages, and 4) convert probabilities to proportions.
RESULTS: On average, 18% and 32% of participants correctly answered all of the general and expanded numeracy scale items, respectively. Approximately 16% to 20% incorrectly answered the most straightforward questions pertaining to risk magnitudes (e.g., Which represents the larger risk: 1%, 5%, or 10%?). A factor analysis revealed that the general and expanded risk numeracy items tapped the construct of global numeracy.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that even highly educated participants have difficulty with relatively simple numeracy questions, thus replicating in part earlier studies. The implication is that usual strategies for communicating numerical risk may be flawed. Methods and consequences of communicating health risk information tailored to a person's level of numeracy should be explored further.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11206945     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  382 in total

1.  Effect of various risk/benefit trade-offs on parents' understanding of a pediatric research study.

Authors:  Alan R Tait; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Terri Voepel-Lewis
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 2.  What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Burkell
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2004-04

Review 3.  Research issues in genetic testing of adolescents for obesity.

Authors:  Mary E Segal; Pamela Sankar; Danielle R Reed
Journal:  Nutr Rev       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 7.110

4.  Communicating risk to patients and the public.

Authors:  Gurudutt Naik; Haroon Ahmed; Adrian G K Edwards
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Public understanding of risks from gene-environment interaction in common diseases: implications for public communications.

Authors:  C M Condit; L Shen
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Numeracy and Interpretation of Prognostic Estimates in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Among Surrogate Decision Makers in the Neurologic ICU.

Authors:  Nikita Leiter; Melissa Motta; Robert M Reed; Temitope Adeyeye; Debra L Wiegand; Nirav G Shah; Avelino C Verceles; Giora Netzer
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  Utilization of Genetic Counseling after Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study.

Authors:  Diane R Koeller; Wendy R Uhlmann; Deanna Alexis Carere; Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Effects of patient-provider race concordance and smoking status on lung cancer risk perception accuracy among African-Americans.

Authors:  Susan Persky; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Vincent C Allen; Ibrahim Senay
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2013-06

9.  Don't know responses to cognitive and affective risk perception measures: Exploring prevalence and socio-demographic moderators.

Authors:  Eva Janssen; Philippe Verduyn; Erika A Waters
Journal:  Br J Health Psychol       Date:  2018-02-02

10.  A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; Michael P Pignone; Carmen L Lewis
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.