On the Effect of Individual Differences on Shared Decision Making



Do patients want to participate in making decisions about their health? Is there a relationship between their preferences for shared decision making and numeracy skills? Are those preferences different in countries with different medical systems, and for different age groups? Extant studies cannot answer these questions because most are based on nonprobabilistic, highly selective patient samples that prevent generalizations to a broader population. In a survey on probabilistic national samples in the USA and Germany, we interviewed participants with low and high numeracy skills. A significant number of people with low numeracy in both the USA and Germany preferred to be more passive than they currently were. High-numeracy people, in contrast, were mostly satisfied with their current role. Education efforts to increase numeracy, as well as using nonquantitative communication formats, may foster involvement of low-numeracy patients in decisions about their health.


Passive Role Prefer Role Current Role Numeracy Skill Usual Role 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ancker, J. S., & Kaufman, D. (2007). Rethinking health numeracy: A multidisciplinary literature review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14, 713–721.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry, M. J. (1999). Involving patients in medical decisions: How can physicians do better? Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 2356–2357.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver, K., & Booth, K. (2007). Information needs and decision-making preferences: Comparing findings for gynaecological, breast and colorectal cancer. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 11, 409–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caress, A. L., Luker, K., Woodcock, A., & Beaver, K. (2002). Qualitative exploration of treatment decision-making role preference in adult asthma patients. Health Expectations, 5, 223–235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cassileth, B. R., Zupkis, R. V., Sutton-Smith, K., & March, V. (1980). Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Annals of Internal Medicine, 92, 832–836.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Davids, S. L., Schapira, M. M., McAuliffe, T. L., & Nattinger, A. B. (2004). Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 310–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deber, R. B. (1994). Physicians in health care management: 8. The patient-physician partnership: Decision making, problem solving and the desire to participate. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 151, 423–427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Deber, R. B., Kraetschmer, N., & Irvine, J. (1996). What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making? Archives of Internal Medicine, 156, 1414–1420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Degner, L. F., Kristjanson, L. J., Bowman, D., Sloan, J. A., Carriere, K. C., O’Neil, J., et al. (1997a). Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1485–1492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Degner, L. F., & Russell, C. A. (1988). Preferences for treatment control among adults with cancer. Research in Nursing and Health, 11, 367–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Degner, L. F., & Sloan, J. A. (1992). Decision making during serious illness: What role do patients really want to play? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 941–949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Degner, L. F., Sloan, J. A., & Venkatesh, P. (1997b). The control preferences scale. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 29, 21–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Donelle, L., Arocha, J. F., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2008). Health literacy and numeracy: Key factors in cancer risk comprehension. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 29, 1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, A. (2003). Communicating risks through analogies. British Medical Journal, 327, 749.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ende, J., Kazis, L., Ash, A., & Moskowitz, M. A. (1989). Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: Decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 4, 23–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Estrada, C. A., Martin-Hryniewicz, M., Peek, B. T., Collins, C., & Byrd, J. C. (2004). Literacy and numeracy skills and anticoagulation control. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 328, 88–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fagerlin, A., Ubel, P. A., Smith, D. M., & Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2007). Making numbers matter: Present and future research in risk communication. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Ubel, P. A. (2005). How making a risk estimate can change the feel of that risk: Shifting attitudes toward breast cancer risk in a general public survey. Patient Education and Counseling, 57, 294–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frosch, D. L., & Kaplan, R. M. (1999). Shared decision making in clinical medicine: Past research and future directions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17, 285–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2010). Statistical numeracy for health: A cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170, 462–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2011). Do low-numeracy people avoid shared decision ­making? Health Psychology, 30, 336–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galesic, M., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology, 28, 210–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2009). Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: A cross-cultural comparison. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2196–2202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010a). How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25, 1323–1329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010b). Who profits from visual aids? Overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 1019–1025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Medical Decision Making, 30, 672–684.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaston, C. M., & Mitchell, G. (2005). Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 2252–2264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanson, J. L. (2008). Shared decision making: Have we missed the obvious? Archives of Internal Medicine, 168, 1368–1370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21, 37–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson, W., Reyna, V. F., Fagerlin, A., Lipkus, I., & Peters, E. (2008). Clinical implications of numeracy: Theory and practice. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 261–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peters, E., & Levin, I. P. (2008). Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 435–448.Google Scholar
  32. Peters, E., Vastfjall, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mozzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 406–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2007). The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reyna, V. R., Nelson, W. L., Han, P., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 943–973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoen, C., Doty, M. M., Collins, S. R., & Holmgren, A. L. (2005). Insured but not protected: How many adults are underinsured? Health Affairs, W5-289–W5-302.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966–972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2011). Sozialleistungen Angaben zur Krankenversicherung (Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus)-Fachserie 13 Reihe 1.1-2007., accessed July 30, 2012.
  39. Strull, W. N., Lo, B., & Charles, G. (1984). Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? Journal of the American Medical Association, 252, 2990–2994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1999). Women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk: How you ask matters. Medical Decision Making, 19, 221–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. World Health Organization (2012). World Health Statistics 2012., accessed July 30, 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Adaptive Behavior and CognitionMax Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Departamento de Psicología Experimental, Facultad de PsicologíaUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations