Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 2005). National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://hints.matthewsgroup.com/register/register.aspx
. Accessibility verified December 10, 2007.
Kirsch I, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. Adult literacy in America: A First Look at the Findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education; 1993.
Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education; 2006.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office; 2000; 2 November.
Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Health literacy: Report of the council on scientific affairs. J Am Med Assoc
. 1999; 281: 552–557.CrossRef
Nutbeam D. Health promotion glossary. Health Promot Int
. 1998; 13: 349–364.CrossRef
Golbeck AL, Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Paschal AM, Dismuke SE. A definition and operational framework for health numeracy. Am J Prev Med
. 2005; 29: 375–376.PubMedCrossRef
Ancker JS, Kaufman D. Rethinking health numeracy: A multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc
. 2007; 14: 713–721.PubMedCrossRef
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learn Indiv Differ
. 2007; 17: 147–159.CrossRef
Peters E, Vastfjall D, Slovic P, et al. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci
. 2006; 17: 408–414.CrossRef
Hibbard JH, Peters E, Dixon A, Tusler M. Consumer competencies and the use of comparative quality information: It isn’t just about literacy. Med Care Res Rev
. 2007; 64: 379–394.PubMedCrossRef
Kutner M, Greenberg E, Baer J. A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century (NCES 2006-470). US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office; 2005.
Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, et al. Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. J Am Med Assoc
. 1995; 274: 1677–1682.CrossRef
Rothman RL, Housam R, Weiss H, et al. Patient understanding of food labels: The role of literacy and numeracy. Am J Prev Med
. 2006; 31: 391–398.PubMedCrossRef
Davis TC, Crouch MA, Long SW, et al. Rapid assessment of literacy levels of adult primary care patients. Fam Med
. 1991; 23: 433–435.PubMed
Wilkinson G. WRAT-3: Wide Range Achievement Test, Administration Manual. Wilmington: Wide Range; 1993.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med
. 1997; 127: 966–972.PubMed
Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med
. 2003; 18: 884–892.PubMedCrossRef
Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: How research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med
. 1992; 92: 121–124.PubMedCrossRef
Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical students’ ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract
. 2002; 5: 35–40.PubMed
Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Mak
. 2001; 21: 37–44.CrossRef
Yamigishi K. When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol
. 1997; 11: 495–506.CrossRef
Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ, Whalen P. Genetic testing and medical decision making. Arch Intern Med
. 2001; 161: 2406–2408.PubMedCrossRef
Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med
. 1993; 8: 543–548.PubMedCrossRef
Chao C, Studts JL, Abell T, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: How presentation of recurrence risk influences decision making. J Clin Oncol
. 2003; 21: 4299–4305.PubMedCrossRef
Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: Does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness. Ann Intern Med
. 1992; 117: 916–921.PubMed
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information: A review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun
. 2001; 6: 61–682.PubMedCrossRef
Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. Br Med J. 1994; 309: 761–764.
Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: Does the format of efficacy data determine patients’ acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Mak
. 1995; 15: 152–157.CrossRef
Sarfati D, Howden-Chapman P, Woodward A, Salmond C. Does the frame affect the picture? A study into how attitudes to screening for cancer are affected by the way benefits are expressed. J Med Screen
. 1998; 5: 137–140.PubMed
DeWalt DA, Berkman ND, Sheridan S, Lohr KN, Pignone MP. Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med
. 2004; 19: 1228–1239.PubMedCrossRef
Berkman ND, DeWalt DA, Pignone MP, et al. Literacy and Health Outcomes. Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 87. Rockville: AHRQ; 2004. (Prepared by RTI International, University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0016) AHRQ Publication No. 04-E007-1: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; January.
Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS, Nurss J. The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. Am J Pub Health
. 1997; 87: 1027–1030.PubMed
Sentell TL, Halpin HA. Importance of adult literacy in understanding health disparities. J Gen Intern Med
. 2006; 21: 862–866.PubMedCrossRef
Williams MV, Baker DW, Parker RM, Nurss JR. Relationship of functional health literacy to patients’ knowledge of their chronic disease. Arch Intern Med
. 1998; 158: 166–172.PubMedCrossRef
Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in adults. J Gen Intern Med
. 1995; 10: 537–541.PubMedCrossRef
Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns
. 1999; 38: 33–42.PubMedCrossRef
Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS. Health literacy and the risk of hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med
. 1998; 13: 791–798.PubMedCrossRef
Scott TL, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, Baker DW. Health literacy and preventive health care use among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. Medical Care
. 2002; 40: 395–404.PubMedCrossRef
Estrada CA, Martin-Hryniewicz M, Peek BT, Collins C, Byrd JC. Literacy and numeracy skills and anticoagulation control. Am J Med Sci
. 2004; 328: 88–93.PubMedCrossRef
Apter AJ, Cheng J, Small D, et al. Asthma numeracy skill and health literacy. J Asthma
. 2006; 43: 705–710.PubMedCrossRef
Gazmararian JA, Kripalani S, Miller MJ, et al. Factors associated with medication refill adherence in cardiovascular-related diseases. J Gen Intern Med
. 2006; 21: 1215–1221.PubMedCrossRef
Lenert LA, Sherbourne CD, Reyna VF. Utility elicitation using single item questions compared with a computerized interview. Med Decis Mak
. 2001; 21: 97–104.CrossRef
Morimoto T, Fukui T. Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: Review and reference for health care professionals. J Epidemiol
. 2002; 12: 160–178.PubMed
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Moncur M, Gabriel S, Tosteson ANA. Assessing values for health: Numeracy matters. Med Decis Mak
. 2001; 21: 382–390.CrossRef
Schwartz SR, McDowell J, Yueh B. Numeracy and the shortcomings of utility assessment in head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck
. 2004; 26: 401–407.PubMedCrossRef
Lindau ST, Tomori C, Lyons T, et al. The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. Am J Obstet Gynecol
. 2002; 186: 938–943.PubMedCrossRef
Bass PF, Wilson JF, Griffith CH, Barnett DR. Residents’ ability to identify patients with poor literacy skills. Acad Med
. 2002; 77: 1039–1041.PubMedCrossRef
Rogers ES, Wallace LS, Weiss BD. Misperceptions of medical understanding in low-literacy patients: Implications for cancer prevention. Cancer Control. 2006; 3: 225–229.
Doak LG, Doak CC. Patient comprehension profiles: Recent findings and strategies. Patient Couns Health Educ
. 1980; 2: 101–106.PubMedCrossRef
Kicklighter JR, Stein MA. Factors influencing diabetic clients’ ability to read and comprehend printed diabetic diet material. Diabetes Educ
. 1993; 19: 40–46.PubMed
Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou DM. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Family Pract. 1990; 31: 533–538.
Powers RD. Emergency department patient literacy and the readability of patient-directed materials. Ann Emerg Med
. 1988; 17: 124–126.PubMedCrossRef
Safeer RS, Keenan J. Health literacy: The gap between physicians and patients. Am Fam Phys. 2005; 72: 463–468.
Dunning D, Heath C, Suls JM. Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest
. 2004; 5: 69–106.CrossRef
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Med Decis Mak
. 2005; 25: 290–300.CrossRef
Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, et al. Quick assessment of literacy primary care: The newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med
. 2005; 3: 514–522.PubMedCrossRef
Estrada C, Barnes V, Collins C, Byrd JC. Health literacy and numeracy. J Am Med Assoc
. 1999; 282: 527.CrossRef
Montori VM, Leung TW, Thompson CA, et al. Validation of a diabetes numeracy evaluation tool [Abstract]. Diabetes. 2004; 53(Suppl 2): A224–A225.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, et al. Measuring numeracy without a math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Mak
. 2007; 27: 672–680.CrossRef
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale: Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Mak
. 2007; 27: 663–671.CrossRef
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Patients and medical statistics: Interest, confidence, and ability. J Gen Intern Med
. 2005; 20: 996–1000.PubMedCrossRef
Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, et al. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Mak
. 2000; 20: 228–238.CrossRef
Mazur DJ, Merz JF. How the manner of presentation of data influences older patients in determining their treatment preferences. J Am Geriatr Soc
. 1993; 41: 223–228.PubMed
Ancker J, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren J. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc
. 2006; 13: 608–618.PubMedCrossRef
Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monograph. 1999; 25: 149–163.
Cleveland W, McGill R. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J Am Stat Assoc
. 1984; 77: 541–547.CrossRef
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Numeracy, ratio bias and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Individ Differ (in press, 2008).
Reyna V, Brainerd C. Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learn Individ Differ
. 1995; 7: 1–75.CrossRef
Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy-trace theory. Med Decis Mak. (in press, 2008).
Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: Judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Mak
. 2007; 27: 34–43.CrossRef
Hollands JG, Tanaka T, Dyre BP. Understanding bias in proportion production. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform
. 2002; 28: 563–574.PubMedCrossRef
Sandman P, Weinstein N, Miller P. High risk or low: How location on a “risk ladder” affected perceived risk. Risk Anal
. 1994; 14: 35–45.PubMedCrossRef
Lakoff G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1987.
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. What’s time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Risk Anal
. 2005; 25: 1–7.CrossRef
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. The origins of probability judgment: A review of data and theories. In: Wright G, Ayton P, eds. Subjective Probability. New York: Wiley; 1994: 239–272.
Stone E, Yates J, Parker A. Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. J Exp Psychol Appl
. 1997; 3: 243–256.CrossRef
Stone E, Sieck W, Bull B, et al. Foreground: Background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Org Behav Hum Decis Process
. 2003; 90: 19–36.CrossRef
Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Mak
. 2001; 21: 459–467.CrossRef
Zacks J, Levy E, Tversky B, Schiano D. Reading bar graphs: Effects of extraneous depth cues and graphical context. J Exp Psychol Appl
. 1998; 4: 119–138.CrossRef
Levy E, Zacks J, Tversky B, Schiano D. Gratuitous graphics? Putting preferences in perspective. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver: ACM; 1996: 42–49.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Smith D. Measuring numeracy and the impact of numeracy on medical decision making. Annual Meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. Washington, DC; 2007.
Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev
. 2007; 64: 169–190.PubMedCrossRef
Bastardi A, Shafir E. On the pursuit and misuse of useless information. J Pers Soc Psychol
. 1998; 75: 19–32.PubMedCrossRef
McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med
. 1982; 306: 1259–1262.PubMed
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. J Behav Decis Mak
. 1991; 4: 249–262.CrossRef
Benjamin DJ, Brown SA, Shapiro JM. “Who is “behavioral”? Cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. Available at: SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=675264
. Accessibility verified December 17, 2007.
Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect. 2005; 19: 24–42.
Ashcraft MH. Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Curr Dir Psychol Sci
. 2002; 11: 181–185.CrossRef
Fischhoff B. Assessing adolescent decision-making competence. Dev Rev (in press, 2008).
Gigerenzer G. Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology (and vice versa). In: Wright G, Ayton P, eds. Subjective Probability. New York, NY: Wiley; 1994: 129–161.
Dehaene S. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
Natter HM, Berry DC. Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Appl Cogn Psychol
. 2005; 19: 123–135.CrossRef
Chen MK, Lakshminaryanan V, Santos LR. The evolution of our preferences: Evidence from capuchin monkey trading behavior. J Polit Econ
. 2006; 114: 517–537.CrossRef
Barbey AK, Sloman SA. Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behav Brain Sci
. 2007; 30: 241–254.PubMed
Sloman S. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull
. 1996; 119: 3–22.CrossRef
Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol
. 1994; 49: 709–724.PubMedCrossRef
Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal
. 2004; 24: 311–322.PubMedCrossRef
Reyna VF, Mills BA. Converging evidence supports fuzzy-trace theory’s nested sets hypothesis (but not the frequency hypothesis). Behav Brain Sci
. 2007; 30: 278–280.CrossRef
Reyna VF, Ellis SC. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in children’s risky decision making. Psychol Sci
. 1994; 5: 275–279.CrossRef
Reyna VF, Farley F. Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: Implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest
. 2006; 7: 1–44.CrossRef
Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ. Physician decision making and cardiac risk: Effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl
. 2006; 12: 179–195.PubMedCrossRef
Reyna VF. Class inclusion, the conjunction fallacy, and other cognitive illusions. Dev Rev
. 1991; 11: 317–336.CrossRef
Reyna VF, Adam MB. Fuzzy-trace theory, risk communication, and product labeling in sexually transmitted diseases. Risk Anal
. 2003; 23: 325–342.PubMedCrossRef
Rivers S, Mills B, Reyna VF. Risky behavior under the influence: A fuzzy-trace theory of emotion in adolescence. Dev Rev (in press, 2008).
Schapira M. The development of a health numeracy measure. Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects
. Available at: http://crisp.cit.nih.gov
. Accessibility verified December 13, 2007.
Donelle L, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Assessing health numeracy among community-dwelling older adults. J Health Commun
. 2007; 12: 651–655.PubMedCrossRef
Seligman HK, Wang FF, Palacios JL, et al. Physician notification of their diabetes patients’ limited health literacy: A randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med
. 2005; 20: 1001–1007.PubMedCrossRef
Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Mak
. 2007; 27: 696–713.CrossRef
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Mortality versus survival graphs: Improving temporal consistence in perceptions of treatment effectiveness. Patient Educ Couns
. 2007; 66: 100–107.PubMedCrossRef
Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun
. 2006; 11: 569–582.PubMedCrossRef
Stone ER, Yates JF, Parker AM. Risk communication: Absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks. Org Behav Hum Decis Process
. 1994; 60: 387–408.CrossRef
Carpenter PA, Shah P. A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. J Exp Psychol Appl
. 1998; 4: 75–100.CrossRef
Cleveland WS, McGill R. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science
. 1985; 229: 828–833.PubMedCrossRef
Burkell J. What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. J Med Lib Assoc. 2004; 92: 200–208.
Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Zwick R, Kemp SM. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bull Psychon Soc. 1993; 31: 135–138.
Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patient interpretations of terms connoting low probabilities when communicating about surgical risk. Theor Surg
. 1993; 8: 143–145.PubMed
Kenney RM. Between never and always. N Engl J Med
. 1981; 305: 1097–1098.PubMed
Bryant GD, Norman GR. Expressions of probability: Words and numbers. N Engl J Med
. 1980; 302: 411–412.PubMed
Woloshin KK, Ruffin MT, Gorenflo DW. Patients’ interpretation of qualitative probability statements. Arch Fam Med
. 1994; 3: 961–966.PubMedCrossRef
Mazur DJ, Hickam DH, Mazur MD. How patients’ preferences for risk information influence treatment choice in a case of high risk and high therapeutic uncertainty: Asymptomatic localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Mak
. 1999; 19: 394–398.CrossRef
Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients’ preferences for risk disclosure and role in decision making for invasive medical procedures. J Gen Intern Med
. 1997; 12: 114–117.PubMedCrossRef
Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients’ interpretations of probability terms. J Gen Intern Med
. 1991; 6: 237–240.PubMedCrossRef
Brun W, Teigen KH. Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Org Behav Hum Decis Process
. 1988; 41: 390–404.CrossRef
O’Brien BJ. Words or numbers? The evaluation of probability expressions in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract
. 1989; 39: 98–100.PubMed
Kong A, Barnett GO, Mosteller F, Youtz C. How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med
. 1986; 315: 740–744.PubMed
Nakao MA, Axelrod S. Numbers are better than words: Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. Am J Med
. 1983; 74: 1061–1065.PubMedCrossRef
Mapes REA. Verbal and numerical estimates of probability in therapeutic contexts. Soc Sci Med
. 1979; 13A: 277–282.PubMed