IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v43y1996i8p1179-1187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The meaning of 6.8: Numeracy and normality in health information talks

Author

Listed:
  • Adelswärd, Viveka
  • Sachs, Lisbeth

Abstract

The ambiguities of risk which stem from its translation from epidemiological findings into clinical knowledge and practice and thus to lay experiences of health and illness is a clear dilemma. How are risks expressed statistically, or otherwise mathematically, to be interpreted and communicated within the discourse of medico-science, and how within the discourse of an individual's everyday life? An important tool in all risk discourses and in preventive practices such as health information is testing and test results. Test results--presented in mathematical terms as points on a scale, or as a number--are in fact fundamental to preventive practice. But what do we know about how people involved in these tests understand them and how the results are used in the construction of ideas about risk and normalcy? This article attempts to answer part of that question by drawing on an empirical study of the use of numbers as metaphors in talks between a nurse and her potential patients in a directed health survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Adelswärd, Viveka & Sachs, Lisbeth, 1996. "The meaning of 6.8: Numeracy and normality in health information talks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1179-1187, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:43:y:1996:i:8:p:1179-1187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00366-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Solbjør, Marit & Skolbekken, John-Arne & Sætnan, Ann Rudinow & Hagen, Anne Irene & Forsmo, Siri, 2012. "Mammography screening and trust: The case of interval breast cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1746-1752.
    2. Jean Harbison, 2006. "Clinical judgement in the interpretation of evidence: a Bayesian approach," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(12), pages 1489-1497, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:43:y:1996:i:8:p:1179-1187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.