IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i1p27-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Numeracy on Verbatim Knowledge of the Longitudinal Risk for Prostate Cancer Recurrence following Radiation Therapy

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel A. Hamstra
  • Skyler B. Johnson
  • Stephanie Daignault
  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
  • Jeremy M. G. Taylor
  • Knoll Larkin
  • Alexander Wood
  • Angela Fagerlin

Abstract

Objective . Given the long natural history of prostate cancer, we assessed differing graphical formats for imparting knowledge about the longitudinal risks of prostate cancer recurrence with or without ‘hormone’ or ‘androgen deprivation’ therapy. Methods . Male volunteers without a history of prostate cancer were randomized to 1 of 8 risk communication instruments that depicted the likelihood of prostate cancer returning or spreading over 1, 2, and 3 years. The tools differed in format (line, pie, bar, or pictograph) and whether the graph also included no numbers, 1 number (indicating the number of affected individuals), or 2 numbers (indicting both the number affected and the number unaffected). The main outcome variables evaluated were graphical preference and knowledge. Results . A total of 420 men were recruited; respondents were least familiar and experienced with pictographs ( P

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel A. Hamstra & Skyler B. Johnson & Stephanie Daignault & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Jeremy M. G. Taylor & Knoll Larkin & Alexander Wood & Angela Fagerlin, 2015. "The Impact of Numeracy on Verbatim Knowledge of the Longitudinal Risk for Prostate Cancer Recurrence following Radiation Therapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 27-36, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:1:p:27-36
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14551639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14551639
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14551639?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Angela Fagerlin & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "What's Time Got to Do with It? Inattention to Duration in Interpretation of Survival Graphs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 589-595, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2017. "Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 546-556, March.
    2. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    3. Sushant Govindan & Katherine Prenovost & Vineet Chopra & Theodore J Iwashyna, 2018. "A comprehension scale for central-line associated bloodstream infection: Results of a preliminary survey and factor analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-11, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Walton Sumner & Eric Ding & Irene D. Fischer & Michael D. Hagen, 2014. "Methods for Performing Survival Curve Quality-of-Life Assessments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 787-799, August.
    2. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.

    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:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:1:p:27-36. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.