Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25948493›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2016

Should Health Numeracy Be Assessed Objectively or Subjectively?

James G Dolan, Olena A Cherkasky, Qinghua Li, Nancy Chin, Peter J Veazie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Understanding Health Risk Comprehension: The Role of Math Anxiety, Subjective Numeracy, and Objective Numeracy.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Feasibility of Sophisticated Multicriteria Support for Clinical Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

James G DolanDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (JGD, OAC, NC, PJV)
Olena A CherkaskyDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (JGD, OAC, NC, PJV)
Qinghua LiRTI International, Waltham, MD (QL)
Nancy ChinDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (JGD, OAC, NC, PJV)
Peter J VeazieDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (JGD, OAC, NC, PJV)

Funding

Multi-criteria Clinical Decision Support: A Comparative EvaluationK24HL093488 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI DOLAN, JAMES G · 2009 to 2013
$858k
Treatment of Multiple SclerosisK24RR021948 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI REDER, ANTHONY T · 2005 to 2009
$714k
NCRR NIH HHS K24 RR021948NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL093488
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBecause current evidence suggests that numeracy affects how people make decisions, it is an important factor to account for in studies assessing the effectiveness of medical decision support interventions. Subjective and objective numeracy assessment methods are available that vary in theoretical background, skills assessed, known relationship with decision making skills, and ease of implementation. The best way to use these tools to assess numeracy when conducting medical decision-making research is currently unknown.

methodsWe conducted Internet surveys comparing numeracy assessments obtained using the subjective numeracy scale (SNS) and 5 objective numeracy scales. Each study participant completed the SNS and 1 objective numeracy measure. Following each assessment, participants indicated willingness to repeat the assessment and rated its user acceptability.

resultsThe overall response rate was 78%, resulting in a total sample size of 673. Spearman correlations between the SNS and the objective numeracy measures ranged from 0.19 to 0.44. Acceptability assessments for the short form of the Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument and the SNS did not differ significantly. The other objective scales all had lower acceptability ratings than the SNS.

conclusionsThese findings are consistent with prior research suggesting that objective and subjective numeracy scales measure related but distinct constructs. Due to current uncertainty regarding which construct is more likely to influence the effectiveness of decision support interventions, these findings warrant further investigation to determine the proper use of objective versus subjective numeracy assessments in medical decision-making research. Pending additional information, a reasonable approach is to measure both objective and subjective numeracy so that the full range of actual and perceived numeracy skills can be taken into account.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunicationDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUncertaintyYoung Adultdecision aidsinformed medical decision makingnumeracyrisk communication

Identifiers

PMID25948493
PMCPMC4636483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.