Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31864343›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2019

Health numeracy skills of medical students:cross-sectional and controlled before-and-after study.

Ivan Buljan, Ružica Tokalić, Matko Marušić, Ana Marušić

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Ivan BuljanDepartment of Research in Biomedicine in Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia. ibuljan@mefst.hr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8719-7277
Ružica TokalićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine in Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.
Matko MarušićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine in Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.
Ana MarušićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine in Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2, 21000, Split, Croatia.

Funding

Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost IP-2014-09-7672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough numeracy, defined as understanding and handling numbers, is an important skill for the medical profession, it is not clear whether it changes during graduate medical education and whether it can be improved by specific interventions. The objective of this study was to assess objective and subjective numeracy levels at different stages of medical education and explore whether a research methodology/statistics course improves numeracy levels in a longer period.

methodsWe performed cross-sectional and controlled before-and-after studies. First-year sociology students and first- to sixth-year medical students from the in the cross sectional study and two groups of first-year medical students in a controlled before-and-after study. The intervention was a course on biostatistics and research methodology using blended approach. Numeracy was measured using Subjective Numeracy Scale (Cronbach α = 0.70) and Numeracy Understanding in Medicine instrument (Cronbach α = 0.75).

resultsWhereas first-year medical students did not differ from first-year sociology students in objective numeracy, medicine students had higher results on subjective numeracy. Students from higher years of medical school had generally higher subjective and objective numeracy scores. In the controlled before-and-after study, the intervention group improved more in subjective numeracy (median difference on a 0-8 scale = 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.7 vs - 0.4, 95% CI - 0.4 to - 0.1, P < 0.001) but not in objective numeracy.

conclusionsAlthough the numeracy levels at the beginning of the medical school are within the range of non-medical population, both objective and subjective numeracy improve during the higher years of medical school. Curriculum during medical school may help in numeracy increase, while research methodology training may help to increase subjective but not objective numeracy skills.

Indexed as

MathematicsProfessional CompetenceStudents, MedicalAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesCurriculumFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultHealth literacyHealth numeracyMedical educationMedical research

Identifiers

PMID31864343
PMCPMC6925899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.