IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i4p501-511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Patients’ Numeracy Related to Physical and Mental Health?

Author

Listed:
  • Rocio Garcia-Retamero
  • Allen Andrade
  • Joseph Sharit
  • Jorge G. Ruiz

Abstract

Objective. There is compelling evidence showing that health literacy influences health outcomes. However, there is a dearth of research investigating this issue in the vast literature on numeracy—the ability to accurately interpret numerical information about risk, a skill that is only moderately correlated with health literacy. In a cross-sectional study, we investigated whether objective and subjective numeracy is related to objective and subjective health outcomes. Objective (subjective) numeracy is actual (self-reported) numerical competence. Objective outcomes include prevalence of comorbidity and prescribed medications. Subjective outcomes include perceptions of physical and mental health. Methods. A convenience sample of 502 male individuals receiving outpatient care at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center reported their demographics and answered a survey measuring objective and subjective numeracy, trust in physicians, satisfaction with role in medical decision making, perceptions of physical and mental health, and risky habits. We computed patients’ body mass index (BMI) and their age-adjusted Charlson index—an extensively studied comorbidity index for predicting mortality in clinical research. We retrieved number of prescribed medications from medical records. Results. Compared with patients who had high objective numeracy, patients with low objective numeracy showed higher prevalence of comorbidities and took more prescribed medications. Compared with patients who had high subjective numeracy, patients with low subjective numeracy had more negative perceptions of their physical and mental health. These conclusions held after controlling for the effect of demographics, risky habits, BMI, trust in physicians, and satisfaction with role in decision making, suggesting that numeracy has a unique, significant contribution to health outcomes beyond the effect of these factors. Conclusions. Our research documents for the first time that self-reported numeracy is related to perceptions of health, whereas objective numeracy is related to actual health, laying the groundwork for future research on the effect of numeracy on health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Allen Andrade & Joseph Sharit & Jorge G. Ruiz, 2015. "Is Patients’ Numeracy Related to Physical and Mental Health?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 501-511, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:4:p:501-511
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15578126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15578126
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15578126?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. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:6:p:435-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    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. Mondal, Supratik & Traczyk, Jakub, 2023. "Conditionality of adaptiveness: Investigating the relationship between numeracy and adaptive behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    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. James Alm & Lilith Burgstaller & Arrita Domi & Amanda März & Matthias Kasper, 2023. "Nudges, Boosts, and Sludge: Using New Behavioral Approaches to Improve Tax Compliance," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    3. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    4. Aysegul Kanay & Denis Hilton & Laetitia Charalambides & Jean-Baptiste Corrégé & Eva Inaudi & Laurent Waroquier & Stéphane Cézéra, 2021. "Making the carbon basket count: Goal setting promotes sustainable consumption in a simulated online supermarket," Post-Print hal-03403040, HAL.
    5. Ruttan, Rachel L. & Nordgren, Loran F., 2016. "The strength to face the facts: Self-regulation defends against defensive information processing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 86-98.
    6. Jessica K. Witt, 2020. "The Precision-Bias Distinction for Evaluating Visual Decision Aids for Risk Perception," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 846-853, August.
    7. Michelle McDowell & Mirta Galesic & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2018. "Natural Frequencies Do Foster Public Understanding of Medical Tests: Comment on Pighin, Gonzalez, Savadori, and Girotto (2016)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 390-399, April.
    8. Noel T. Brewer & Janice P. Tzeng & Sarah E. Lillie & Alrick S. Edwards & Jeffrey M. Peppercorn & Barbara K. Rimer, 2009. "Health Literacy and Cancer Risk Perception: Implications for Genomic Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 157-166, March.
    9. Theresa A. K. Knoblauch & Michael Stauffacher & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2018. "Communicating Low‐Probability High‐Consequence Risk, Uncertainty and Expert Confidence: Induced Seismicity of Deep Geothermal Energy and Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 694-709, April.
    10. Alaina N. Talboy & Sandra L. Schneider, 2018. "Improving Understanding of Diagnostic Test Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(5), pages 573-583, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Stefania Pighin & Michel Gonzalez & Lucia Savadori & Vittorio Girotto, 2016. "Natural Frequencies Do Not Foster Public Understanding of Medical Test Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(6), pages 686-691, August.
    13. Jessica S. Ancker & Elke U. Weber & Rita Kukafka, 2011. "Effect of Arrangement of Stick Figures on Estimates of Proportion in Risk Graphics," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 143-150, January.
    14. Marsha Wittink & Mark Cary & Thomas TenHave & Jonathan Baron & Joseph Gallo, 2010. "Towards Patient-Centered Care for Depression," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(3), pages 145-157, September.
    15. Zachary Breig & Paul Feldman, 2024. "Revealing risky mistakes through revisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 227-254, June.
    16. Jessica S. Ancker & Elke U. Weber & Rita Kukafka, 2011. "Effects of Game-Like Interactive Graphics on Risk Perceptions and Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 130-142, January.
    17. Dafina Petrova & Olga Kostopoulou & Brendan C. Delaney & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2018. "Strengths and Gaps in Physicians’ Risk Communication: A Scenario Study of the Influence of Numeracy on Cancer Screening Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 355-365, April.
    18. Collins, Dorothy L. & Street Jr., Richard L., 2009. "A dialogic model of conversations about risk: Coordinating perceptions and achieving quality decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1506-1512, April.

    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:4:p:501-511. 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.