Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 2117–2124 | Cite as

Numeracy and Communication with Patients: They Are Counting on Us

  • Andrea J. Apter
  • Michael K. Paasche-Orlow
  • Janine T. Remillard
  • Ian M. Bennett
  • Elana Pearl Ben-Joseph
  • Rosanna M. Batista
  • James Hyde
  • Rima E. Rudd
Perspectives

Abstract

Patient-centered interactive communication between physicians and patients is recommended to improve the quality of medical care. Numerical concepts are important components of such exchanges and include arithmetic and use of percentages, as well as higher level tasks like estimation, probability, problem-solving, and risk assessment - the basis of preventive medicine. Difficulty with numerical concepts may impede communication. The current evidence on prevalence, measurement, and outcomes related to numeracy is presented, along with a summary of best practices for communication of numerical information. This information is integrated into a hierarchical model of mathematical concepts and skills, which can guide clinicians toward numerical communication that is easier to use with patients.

KEY WORDS

numeracy health literacy health communication risk 

References

  1. 1.
    Apter AJ, Cheng J, Small D, et al. Asthma Numeracy Skill and Health Literacy. J Asthma. 2006;43:705–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, et al. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(8):1278–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gazmararian JA, Baker DW, Williams MV, et al. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. JAMA. 1999;281(6):545–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielson-Bohlman L, Panzer A, Kindig D, eds. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press: 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, et al. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288(4):475–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peters E, Hibbard J, Slovic P, Dieckmann N. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Aff (Project Hope). 2007;26(3):741–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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(2):169–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong MD, Shapiro MF, Boscardin WJ, Ettner SL. Contribution of major diseases to disparities in mortality. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(20):1585–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rothman RL, DeWalt DA, Malone R, et al. Influence of patient literacy on the effectiveness of a primary care-based diabetes disease management program. JAMA. 2004;292(14):1711–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osborn CY, Paasche-Orlow MK, Davis TC, Wolf MS. Health literacy an overlooked factor in understanding HIV health disparities. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(5):374–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cavanaugh K, Huizinga MM, Wallston KA, et al. Association of numeracy and diabetes control. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(10):737–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montori VM, Rothman RL. Weakness in numbers. The challenge of numeracy in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(11):1071–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):966–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parikh NS, Parker RM, Nurss JR, Baker DW, Williams MV. Shame and health literacy: the unspoken connection. Patient Educ Couns. 1996;27(1):33–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kelly KM, Graves KD, Harper FW, Schmidt JE, Dickinson SL, Andrykowski MA. Assessing perceptions of cancer risk: does mode of assessment or numeracy matter? Cancer Detect Prev. 2007;31(6):465–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rudd RE, Anderson JE, Oppenheimer S, Nath C. Health literacy: an update of medical and public health literature. In: Comings J, Garner B, Smith C, eds. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Volume 7. Mathway, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007:175–204.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gal I. Adult Numeracy Development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Foerch JS. Characteristics of adult learners of mathematics. In: Gal I, ed. Adult Numeracy Development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc; 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ancker JS, Kaufman D. Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(6):713–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education; 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Assessment of Adult Literacy. National Center for Education Statistics;Institute of Education Sciences; US Department of Education, 2003. (Accessed 10/30/2007, 2007, at http://nces.ed.gov/naal/.)
  22. 22.
    Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The health literacy of America’s adults, Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. In: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education; 2006.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murray TS, Clermont Y, Binkely M. Measuring adult literacy and life skills: new frameworks for assessment. In. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Statistics Canada 2005:1–408.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lemke M, Miller D, Johnston J, et al. 2003 International Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education; 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL); Highlights from the 2003 International Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL). National Center for Education Statistics. (Accessed 7/22/2008, at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ALL/issuebrief.asp.)
  26. 26.
    Anon. Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT3). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.; 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT4). Wide Range, Inc. (Accessed August 11, 2008, at http://www3.parinc.com/products/product.aspx?Productid = WRAT4.)
  28. 28.
    Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH, et al. Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument. Fam Med. 1993;25(6):391–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(10):537–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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(1):33–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, et al. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):514–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(3):290–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Donelle L, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Assessing health numeracy among community-dwelling older adults. J Health Commun. 2007;12(7):651–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The effectiveness of a primer to help people understand risk: two randomized trials in distinct populations. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(4):256–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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(5):391–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haggstrom DA, Schapira MM. Black-white differences in risk perceptions of breast cancer survival and screening mammography benefit. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(4):371–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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(11):884–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Halvorsen PA, Selmer R, Kristiansen IS. Different ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(12):848–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Krishnan JA, Riekert KA, McCoy JV, et al. Corticosteroid use after hospital discharge among high-risk adults with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170(12):1281–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB. Number needed to treat: easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(9):888–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical student’s ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract. 2002;5(1):35–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92(2):121–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Estrada CA, Martin-Hryniewicz M, Peek BT, Collins C, Byrd JC. Literacy and numeracy skills and anticoagulation control. Am J Med Sci. 2004;328(2):88–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Aggarwal A, Speckman JL, Paasche-Orlow MK, Roloff KS, Battaglia TA. The role of numeracy on cancer screening among urban women. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31Suppl 1S57–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Osborn CY, Weiss BD, Davis TC, et al. Measuring adult literacy in health care: performance of the newest vital sign. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31Suppl 1S36–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Golbeck AL, Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Paschal AM, Dismuke SE. A definition and operational framework for health numeracy. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(4):375–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ginsburg L, Manly M, Schmitt MJ. The Components of Numeracy. NCSALL Occasional Paper. National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL) 2006.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gal I. Adults’ statistical literacy: meanings, components, responsibilities. Int Stat Rev. 2002;70:1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(6):459–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Paling J. What do we know about communicating risk? A brief review and suggestion for contextualising serious, but rare, risk, and the example of cox-2 selective and non-selective NSAIDs. Arthritis Research & Therapy. 2008;10(1):R20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Moncur M, Gabriel S, Tosteson AN. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(5):382–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB. How do individuals apply risk information when choosing among health care interventions? Risk Anal. 2003;23(4):697–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pangaro L. A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving descriptive in-training evaluations. Acad Med. 1999;74(11):1203–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, Brundage MD, Mackillop WJ. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(2):228–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kirsch I. The framework used in developing and interpreting the International Adult Literacy Survey. Eur J Psychol Edu. 2001;16(3):335–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC Jr., Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306(21):1259–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Levin IP, Gaeth GJ. How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after conuming the product. J Consume Res. 1988;15:374–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Fitzgerald G, Putt M, Ubel PA. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(1):76–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed). 2002;324(7341):1827–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Slovic P, Monahan J, MacGregor DG. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Human Behav. 2000;24(3):271–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Maat HP. What authors and readers do with side effect information on drugs. In: Lentz L, Maat HP, eds. Discourse Analysis and Evaluation: Functional Approaches. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Ultrecht Studies in Language and Communication; 1997:111–38.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Knapp P, Raynor DK, Berry DC. Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Q Safe Health Care. 2004;13(3):176–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(1)13–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Armstrong K. The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(3):265–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schapira MM, Davids SL, McAuliffe TL, Nattinger AB. Agreement between scales in the measurement of breast cancer risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 2004;24(3)665–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999(25):149–63.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pylar J, Wills CE, Lillie J, Rovner DR, Kelly-Blake K, Holmes-Rovner M. Men’s interpretations of graphical information in a videotape decision aid. Health Expect. 2007;10(2):184–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Price M, Cameron R, Butow P. Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69:121–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Muscatello DJ, Searles A, MacDonald R, Jorm L. Communicating population health statistics through graphs: a randomised controlled trial of graph design interventions. BMC Med. 2006;4:33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Legge GE, Gu YC, Luebker A. Efficiency of graphical perception. Percept Psychophys. 1989;46(4):365–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Cleveland WS, McGill R. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science. 1985;229:828–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Houts PS, Bachrach R, Witmer JT, Tringali CA, Bucher JA, Localio RA. Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;35(2):83–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG, Loscalzo MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61(2):173–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Houts PS, Witmer JT, Egeth HE, Loscalzo MJ, Zabora JR. Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions II. Patient Educ Couns. 2001;43(3):231–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making. 2005;25(4):398–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Dewalt DA, Malone RM, Bryant ME, et al. A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: A randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170]. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ. Utilizing computerized entertainment education in the development of decision AIDS for lower literate and naive computer users. J Health Commun. 2007;12(7):681–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS. Evidence does not support clinical screening of literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(1):100–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Paasche-Orlow MK, Schillinger D, Greene SM, Wagner EH. How health care systems can begin to address the challenge of limited literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(8):884–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Paasche-Orlow MK, Riekert KA, Bilderback A, et al. Tailored education may reduce health literacy disparities in asthma self-management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172(8):980–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Grade Report Card. National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, 2007. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007494_3.pdf (Accessed 8/11/2008).
  86. 86.
    Perle M, Moran R. NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics (NCES 2005–464). In. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics; 2005.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Schmidt WH, McKnight CC, Raizen SA. A splintered vision: an investigation of US science and mathematics education. Dordrecth, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1997.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kilpatrick J, Swafford J, Findell B. Adding it Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun. 2006;11(6):569–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, et al. Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA. 1998;280(24):2077–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    DeWalt DA, Malone RM, Bryant ME, et al. A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: a randomized, controlled trial [ISRCTN11535170]. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Hershey JC, Ubel PA. The role of physicians’ recommendations in medical treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(3):262–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea J. Apter
    • 1
  • Michael K. Paasche-Orlow
    • 2
  • Janine T. Remillard
    • 3
  • Ian M. Bennett
    • 4
  • Elana Pearl Ben-Joseph
    • 5
  • Rosanna M. Batista
    • 6
  • James Hyde
    • 7
  • Rima E. Rudd
    • 8
  1. 1.Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care Medicine, Department of MedicineUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of MedicineBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  3. 3.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Family Medicine and Community HealthUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Nemours Center for Children’s Health Media, Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for ChildrenWilmingtonUSA
  6. 6.Research Study Coordinator, Children’s HospitalBostonUSA
  7. 7.Department of Public Health and Family MedicineTufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  8. 8.Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations