ArticlePloS one2018
The relationship between low perceived numeracy and cancer knowledge, beliefs, and affect.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Interrelationships Among Numeracy, Cancer Risk Perceptions, and Tobacco Product Use.Tobacco use insights · 2025Article
- Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Article
- Development and psychometric properties of a brief generic cancer knowledge scale for patients (BCKS-10).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- Geographic Barriers Affect Follow-Up Care in Head and Neck Cancer.The Laryngoscope · 2022Article
- Cancer information overload: Discriminant validity and relationship to sun safe behaviors.Patient education and counseling · 2020Article
- Worry about lung cancer is related to numeracy and risk perception of diseases associated with smoking.American journal of health education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low numeracy may skew patient perceptions of information about cancer. This paper examines the relationship between self-reported measures of perceived numeracy and cancer knowledge, beliefs, and affect, using results from 3,052 respondents to the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS-3). Chi-squared tests were used to identify differences in responses between high- and low-numeracy groups using three measures of perceived numeracy. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between the three perceived numeracy measures and cancer information overload, cancer fatalism, cancer prevention knowledge, and cancer worry. Respondents with low perceived numeracy as expressed by discomfort with medical statistics were more likely to report information overload, to display fatalistic attitudes towards cancer, to lack knowledge about cancer prevention, and to indicate that they worried about cancer more frequently. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, this measure of perceived numeracy remained significantly associated with information overload, fatalism, lower prevention knowledge, and worry. The other measures of perceived numeracy, which measured understanding and use of health statistics, were not associated with cancer perceptions. Our findings suggest that individuals with low perceived numeracy broadly differ from individuals with high perceived numeracy in their perceptions of cancer and cancer prevention. By improving our understanding of how perceived numeracy affects patient perceptions of cancer, health providers can improve educational strategies and targeted health messaging.
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.