ArticleJournal of health communication2014
Development and validation of the numeracy understanding in Medicine Instrument short form.
Article in Journal of health communication, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Designed for a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Health Literacy among Medically Underserved: The Role of Demographic Factors, Social Influence, and Religious Beliefs.Journal of health communication · 2017Trial
- Utilization of Continuous "Spinners" to Communicate Risk.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2017Trial
- Design of a randomized controlled trial using a community-academic partnership to improve medication adherence: MI-CARE study protocol and implementation.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- Cognitive readiness of nurses regarding artificial intelligence predictions: understanding through the dual lens of verbatim and gist knowledge.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Improving Decision-Making Encounters in Lung Cancer Treatment: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Low-Literacy Conversation Tool (iDECIDE).CHEST pulmonary · 2025Article
- Stated-Preference Survey Design and Testing in Health Applications.The patient · 2025Article
- Improving lung cancer decision-making using a conversation tool (iDECIDE): a stepped wedge pragmatic clinical trial.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Global Neurocognitive and Emotional Dysfunction in Fanconi Anemia: A Neuropsychological Case Report of a 39-Year-Old Patient.Case reports in neurological medicine · 2025Article
- Show me the roads and give me a road map: Development of a patient conversation tool to improve lung cancer treatment decision-making.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Lower objectively and subjectively assessed numeracy are both associated with poorer self-rated health.BMC research notes · 2021Article
- Preferences for Predictive Model Characteristics among People Living with Chronic Lung Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020Article
- Improving Communication in Breast Cancer Treatment Consultation: Use of a Computer Test of Health Numeracy.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2019Article
- Development of a Sesotho health literacy test in a South African context.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2019Article
- Numeracy and Understanding of Quantitative Aspects of Predictive Models: A Pilot Study.Applied clinical informatics · 2018Article
- The Feasibility of Sophisticated Multicriteria Support for Clinical Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018Article
- Health IT Usability Focus Section: Adapting EHR-Based Medication Instructions to Comply with Plain Language Guidance-A Randomized Experiment.Applied clinical informatics · 2017Article
- Development and Validation of the Spanish Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument.Journal of general internal medicine · 2016Article
- Capsule Commentary on Jacobs et al., Development and Validation of the Spanish-Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument.Journal of general internal medicine · 2016Article
- Should Health Numeracy Be Assessed Objectively or Subjectively?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health numeracy can be defined as the ability to understand and use numeric information and quantitative concepts in the context of health. The authors previously reported the development of the Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument (NUMi), a 20-item test developed using item response theory. The authors now report the development and validation of a short form of the NUMi. Item statistics were used to identify a subset of 8 items representing a range of difficulty and content areas. Internal reliability was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha. Divergent and convergent validity was assessed by comparing scores of the S-NUMI with existing measures of education, print and numeric health literacy, mathematic achievement, cognitive reasoning, and the original NUMi. The 8-item scale had adequate reliability (α=.72) and was strongly correlated to the 20-item NUMi (α=.92). S-NUMi scores were strongly correlated with the Lipkus Expanded Health Numeracy Scale (α=.62), the Wide Range of Achievement Test-Mathematics (α=.72), and the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test (α=.76). Moderate correlation was found with education level (α=.58) and print literacy as measured by the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (α=.49). Results show that the short form of the NUMi is a reliable and valid measure of health numeracy feasible for use in clinical and research settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.