Literature DB >> 16307623

Patients and medical statistics. Interest, confidence, and ability.

Steven Woloshin1, Lisa M Schwartz, H Gilbert Welch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: People are increasingly presented with medical statistics. There are no existing measures to assess their level of interest or confidence in using medical statistics.
OBJECTIVE: To develop 2 new measures, the STAT-interest and STAT-confidence scales, and assess their reliability and validity.
DESIGN: Survey with retest after approximately 2 weeks.
SUBJECTS: Two hundred and twenty-four people were recruited from advertisements in local newspapers, an outpatient clinic waiting area, and a hospital open house. MEASURES: We developed and revised 5 items on interest in medical statistics and 3 on confidence understanding statistics.
RESULTS: Study participants were mostly college graduates (52%); 25% had a high school education or less. The mean age was 53 (range 20 to 84) years. Most paid attention to medical statistics (6% paid no attention). The mean (SD) STAT-interest score was 68 (17) and ranged from 15 to 100. Confidence in using statistics was also high: the mean (SD) STAT-confidence score was 65 (19) and ranged from 11 to 100. STAT-interest and STAT-confidence scores were moderately correlated (r=.36, P<.001). Both scales demonstrated good test-retest repeatability (r=.60, .62, respectively), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.70 and 0.78), and usability (individual item nonresponse ranged from 0% to 1.3%). Scale scores correlated only weakly with scores on a medical data interpretation test (r=.15 and .26, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The STAT-interest and STAT-confidence scales are usable and reliable. Interest and confidence were only weakly related to the ability to actually use data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16307623      PMCID: PMC1490265          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00179.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  6 in total

1.  Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients.

Authors:  J Ende; L Kazis; A Ash; M A Moskowitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1989 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  The Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale, a brief version: psychometric data.

Authors:  Richard M Suinn; Elizabeth H Winston
Journal:  Psychol Rep       Date:  2003-02

3.  Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association.

Authors:  M A Winker; A Flanagin; B Chi-Lum; J White; K Andrews; R L Kennett; C D DeAngelis; R A Musacchio
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 Mar 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Patient desire for information and decision making in health care decisions: the Autonomy Preference Index and the Health Opinion Survey.

Authors:  R F Nease; W B Brooks
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; Russell P Harris; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.043

  6 in total
  24 in total

1.  Racial and ethnic differences in direct-to-consumer genetic tests awareness in HINTS 2007: sociodemographic and numeracy correlates.

Authors:  Aisha T Langford; Ken Resnicow; J Scott Roberts; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Weakness in numbers. The challenge of numeracy in health care.

Authors:  Victor M Montori; Russell L Rothman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Different Measures, Different Outcomes? A Systematic Review of Performance-Based versus Self-Reported Measures of Health Literacy and Numeracy.

Authors:  Eric S Kiechle; Stacy Cooper Bailey; Laurie A Hedlund; Anthony J Viera; Stacey L Sheridan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Development and validation of the numeracy understanding in Medicine Instrument short form.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Cindy M Walker; Tamara Miller; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Pamela S Ganschow; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Diana Imbert; Maria O'Connell; Joan M Neuner
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2014

5.  Factors Affecting Physicians' Intentions to Communicate Personalized Prognostic Information to Cancer Patients at the End of Life: An Experimental Vignette Study.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Nathan F Dieckmann; Christina Holt; Caitlin Gutheil; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  A framework for health numeracy: how patients use quantitative skills in health care.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Mary Ann Gilligan; Toni K King; Purushottam W Laud; B Alexendra Matthews; Joan M Neuner; Elisabeth Hayes
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug

Review 7.  Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice.

Authors:  Wendy Nelson; Valerie F Reyna; Angela Fagerlin; Isaac Lipkus; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2008-08-02

Review 8.  How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Nathan F Dieckmann
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 17.737

9.  Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Thomas C Lehman; Holly Massett; Simon C Lee; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-05-21       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  What is my cancer risk? How internet-based cancer risk assessment tools communicate individualized risk estimates to the public: content analysis.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Helen W Sullivan; Wendy Nelson; Bradford W Hesse
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.