Literature DB >> 19129155

Natural frequencies help older adults and people with low numeracy to evaluate medical screening tests.

Mirta Galesic1, Gerd Gigerenzer, Nils Straubinger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding information about medical screening tests often requires estimating positive predictive values (i.e., posterior probabilities), which is a notoriously difficult task. Previous studies have shown that representation of information in terms of natural frequencies (i.e., counts of occurrences that preserve base rates) facilitates judgments of positive predictive values. The objective of this study was to investigate whether natural frequencies facilitate accurate estimates in elderly people and whether performance depends on numeracy skills. Elderly people are more often than younger people required to use such information to make informed choices regarding medical procedures (e.g., screenings).
METHOD: This was an experimental study in which information about 2 medical screening tests was presented either as conditional probabilities or natural frequencies. Participants were 47 older adults (62-77 years of age; average numeracy score 8.6) and 115 younger adults (18-35 years of age; average numeracy score 10.3).
RESULTS: When the screening information was presented in terms of conditional probabilities, only 15% of the younger adults and 18% of the older adults provided accurate estimates in at least 1 of the tasks. When information was presented in terms of natural frequencies, 55% of the younger adults and 58% of the elderly participants gave correct estimates. This effect occurred without explicit training. Furthermore, participants with higher numeracy scores performed better in the estimation tasks than those with lower numeracy scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Natural frequencies help elderly and young patients-including those with lower numeracy skills-to understand positive predictive values of medical screening tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19129155     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08329463

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


  11 in total

Review 1.  Evidence, values, guidelines and rational decision-making.

Authors:  Bruce Barrett
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Assessing patient preferences for treatment options and process of care in inflammatory bowel disease: a critical review of quantitative data.

Authors:  Meenakshi Bewtra; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Implementation and Evaluation of a Novel Colorectal Cancer Decision Aid Using a Centralized Delivery Strategy.

Authors:  Channing E Tate; Daniel D Matlock; Alexandra F Dalton; Lisa M Schilling; Alexandra Marcus; Tiffany Schommer; Corey Lyon; Carmen L Lewis
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2018-04-25

4.  The association of health literacy and blood pressure reduction in a cohort of patients with hypertension: The heart healthy lenoir trial.

Authors:  Jacqueline R Halladay; Katrina E Donahue; Crystal W Cené; Quefeng Li; Doyle M Cummings; Alan L Hinderliter; Cassandra L Miller; Beverly A Garcia; Edwin Little; Margorie Rachide; Jim Tillman; Alice S Ammerman; Darren DeWalt
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-10-20

Review 5.  Impact of Contraceptive Education on Contraceptive Knowledge and Decision Making: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Karen Pazol; Lauren B Zapata; Stephen J Tregear; Nancy Mautone-Smith; Loretta E Gavin
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Handling of uncertainty in medical data using machine learning and probability theory techniques: a review of 30 years (1991-2020).

Authors:  Roohallah Alizadehsani; Mohamad Roshanzamir; Sadiq Hussain; Abbas Khosravi; Afsaneh Koohestani; Mohammad Hossein Zangooei; Moloud Abdar; Adham Beykikhoshk; Afshin Shoeibi; Assef Zare; Maryam Panahiazar; Saeid Nahavandi; Dipti Srinivasan; Amir F Atiya; U Rajendra Acharya
Journal:  Ann Oper Res       Date:  2021-03-21       Impact factor: 4.820

7.  Providing additional information about the benefits of statins in a leaflet for patients with coronary heart disease: a qualitative study of the impact on attitudes and beliefs.

Authors:  Rebecca Dickinson; David K Raynor; Peter Knapp; Jan MacDonald
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Does exposure to simulated patient cases improve accuracy of clinicians' predictive value estimates of diagnostic test results? A within-subjects experiment at St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.

Authors:  Bonnie Armstrong; Julia Spaniol; Nav Persaud
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Tversky and Kahneman's Cognitive Illusions: Who Can Solve Them, and Why?

Authors:  Georg Bruckmaier; Stefan Krauss; Karin Binder; Sven Hilbert; Martin Brunner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-04-12

Review 10.  Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids.

Authors:  Kirsten J McCaffery; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sian K Smith; David Rovner; Don Nutbeam; Marla L Clayman; Karen Kelly-Blake; Michael S Wolf; Stacey L Sheridan
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.