Dafina Petrova1, Olga Kostopoulou2, Brendan C Delaney2, Edward T Cokely3,4, Rocio Garcia-Retamero1,4. 1. Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. 2. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Division of Surgery, Imperial College London, London, England, UK. 3. National Institute for Risk & Resilience, and Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA. 4. Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many patients have low numeracy, which impedes their understanding of important information about health (e.g., benefits and harms of screening). We investigated whether physicians adapt their risk communication to accommodate the needs of patients with low numeracy, and how physicians' own numeracy influences their understanding and communication of screening statistics. METHODS: UK family physicians ( N = 151) read a description of a patient seeking advice on cancer screening. We manipulated the level of numeracy of the patient (low v. high v. unspecified) and measured physicians' risk communication, recommendation to the patient, understanding of screening statistics, and numeracy. RESULTS: Consistent with best practices, family physicians generally preferred to use visual aids rather than numbers when communicating information to a patient with low (v. high) numeracy. A substantial proportion of physicians (44%) offered high quality (i.e., complete and meaningful) risk communication to the patient. This was more often the case for physicians with higher (v. lower) numeracy who were more likely to mention mortality rates, OR=1.43 [1.10, 1.86], and harms from overdiagnosis, OR=1.44 [1.05, 1.98]. Physicians with higher numeracy were also more likely to understand that increased detection or survival rates do not demonstrate screening effectiveness, OR=1.61 [1.26, 2.06]. CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians know how to appropriately tailor risk communication for patients with low numeracy (i.e., with visual aids). However, physicians who themselves have low numeracy are likely to misunderstand the risks and unintentionally mislead patients by communicating incomplete information. High-quality risk communication and shared decision making can depend critically on factors that improve the risk literacy of physicians.
OBJECTIVE: Many patients have low numeracy, which impedes their understanding of important information about health (e.g., benefits and harms of screening). We investigated whether physicians adapt their risk communication to accommodate the needs of patients with low numeracy, and how physicians' own numeracy influences their understanding and communication of screening statistics. METHODS: UK family physicians ( N = 151) read a description of a patient seeking advice on cancer screening. We manipulated the level of numeracy of the patient (low v. high v. unspecified) and measured physicians' risk communication, recommendation to the patient, understanding of screening statistics, and numeracy. RESULTS: Consistent with best practices, family physicians generally preferred to use visual aids rather than numbers when communicating information to a patient with low (v. high) numeracy. A substantial proportion of physicians (44%) offered high quality (i.e., complete and meaningful) risk communication to the patient. This was more often the case for physicians with higher (v. lower) numeracy who were more likely to mention mortality rates, OR=1.43 [1.10, 1.86], and harms from overdiagnosis, OR=1.44 [1.05, 1.98]. Physicians with higher numeracy were also more likely to understand that increased detection or survival rates do not demonstrate screening effectiveness, OR=1.61 [1.26, 2.06]. CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians know how to appropriately tailor risk communication for patients with low numeracy (i.e., with visual aids). However, physicians who themselves have low numeracy are likely to misunderstand the risks and unintentionally mislead patients by communicating incomplete information. High-quality risk communication and shared decision making can depend critically on factors that improve the risk literacy of physicians.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer screening; numeracy; risk communication
Authors: Guylène Thériault; Pascale Breault; James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Guylène Thériault; Pascale Breault; James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Katerina Andreadis; Ethan Chan; Minha Park; Natalie C Benda; Mohit M Sharma; Michelle Demetres; Diana Delgado; Elizabeth Sigworth; Qingxia Chen; Andrew Liu; Lisa Grossman Liu; Marianne Sharko; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Jessica S Ancker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 5.128