Dataset Information

Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Graphic display formats are often used to enhance health information. Yet limited attention has been paid to graph literacy in people of lower education and lower socioeconomic status (SES). This study aimed to: 1) examine the relationship between graph literacy, numeracy, health literacy and sociodemographic characteristics in a Medicaid-eligible population 2) determine the impact of graph literacy on comprehension and preference for different visual formats. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among people in the US on Medicaid, and of presumed lower education and SES. RESULTS:The mean graph literacy score among 436 participants was 1.47 (SD 1.05, range: 0 to 4). Only graph literacy was significantly associated with overall comprehension (p < .001). Mean comprehension scores were highest for the table format (1.91), closely followed by bar graph (1.85) and icon array (1.80). Information comprehension was aligned with preference scores. CONCLUSIONS:Graph literacy in a Medicaid-eligible population was lower than previous estimates in the US. Tables were better understood, with icon arrays yielding the lowest score. Preferences aligned with comprehension. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:It may be necessary to reconsider the use of graphic display formats when designing information for people with lower educational levels. Further research is needed.

SUBMITTER: Durand MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7657552 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population.

Durand Marie-Anne MA Yen Renata W RW O'Malley James J Elwyn Glyn G Mancini Julien J

PloS one 20201111 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>Graphic display formats are often used to enhance health information. Yet limited attention has been paid to graph literacy in people of lower education and lower socioeconomic status (SES). This study aimed to: 1) examine the relationship between graph literacy, numeracy, health literacy and sociodemographic characteristics in a Medicaid-eligible population 2) determine the impact of graph literacy on comprehension and preference for different visual formats.<h4>Methods</h4>W ...[more]

PMID: 33175891

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health literacy and numeracy influence many health-related behaviors and outcomes. Health literacy and numeracy have been assessed objectively and subjectively, but interrelationships among the measures and the consistency of their association with health knowledge have not been examined. OBJECTIVE:To increase understanding of the structure and interrelations among objective and subjective health literacy and numeracy and how these constructs relate to knowledge of risk factors of two major diseases. DESIGN:Secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data, weighted to be representative of the general US population of non-institutionalized adults. PARTICIPANTS:Participants (N?=?1005, 55.2% response rate) were recruited from GfK KnowledgePanel. The unweighted sample included 52% women, 26% racial/ethnic minorities, and 37% with no college experience. MAIN MEASURES:Objective health literacy, subjective health literacy, objective numeracy, subjective numeracy. Objective and perceived knowledge of diabetes and colon cancer risk factors were also assessed. KEY RESULTS:Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that a model with correlated (r?=?0.16-0.56) but separate factors for each of the four literacy/numeracy constructs best fit the data (RMSEA?=?0.055 (95% CI 0.049-0.061), CFI?=?0.94). Consistency between measures in classifying people as having adequate or limited health literacy or numeracy was 60.9-77.1%, depending on the combination of measures. All four literacy/numeracy constructs were independently associated with objective diabetes knowledge and objective colon cancer knowledge (all ps?<?.04). Subjective (but not objective) literacy and numeracy measures were associated with diabetes perceived knowledge (all ps?<?.02). No literacy/numeracy measures were associated with perceived colon cancer knowledge. CONCLUSIONS:We identified objective and subjective health literacy and numeracy as four distinct but related concepts. We also found that each construct accounts for unique variance in objective (but not subjective) disease knowledge. Until research uncovers what psychological processes drive subjective measures (e.g., motivation, self-efficacy), research investigating the relationship between health literacy and health outcomes should consider assessing all four measures.

Project description:BackgroundHealth coaching is an effective behavior change strategy. Understanding if there is a differential impact of health coaching on patients with low health literacy has not been well investigated.ObjectiveTo determine whether a telephone coaching intervention would result in similar improvements in enrollment in prevention programs and patient activation among Veterans with low versus high health literacy (specifically, reading literacy and numeracy).DesignSecondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.ParticipantsFour hundred seventeen Veterans with at least one modifiable risk factor: current smoker, BMI ≥ 30, or < 150 min of moderate physical activity weekly.MethodsA single-item assessment of health literacy and a subjective numeracy scale were assessed at baseline. A logistic regression and general linear longitudinal models were used to examine the differential impact of the intervention compared to control on enrollment in prevention programs and changes in patient activation measures (PAM) scores among patients with low versus high health literacy.ResultsThe coaching intervention resulted in higher enrollment in prevention programs and improvements in PAM scores compared to usual care regardless of baseline health literacy. The coaching intervention had a greater effect on the probability of enrollment in prevention programs for patients with low numeracy (intervention vs control difference of 0.31, 95% CI 0.18, 0.45) as compared to those with high numeracy (0.13, 95% CI - 0.01, 0.27); the low compared to high differential effect was clinically, but not statistically significant (0.18, 95% CI - 0.01, 0.38; p = 0.07). Among patients with high numeracy, the intervention group had greater increases in PAM as compared to the control group at 6 months (mean difference in improvement 4.8; 95% CI 1.7, 7.9; p = 0.003). This led to a clinically and statistically significant differential intervention effect for low vs high numeracy (- 4.6; 95% CI - 9.1, - 0.15; p = 0.04).ConclusionsWe suggest that health coaching may be particularly beneficial in behavior change strategies in populations with low numeracy when interpretation of health risk information is part of the intervention. CLINICALTRIALS.Gov identifierNCT01828567.

Project description:BackgroundHealth numeracy is an important factor in how well people make decisions based on medical risk information. However, in many countries, including Japan, numeracy studies have been limited.MethodsTo fill this gap, we evaluated health numeracy levels in a sample of Japanese adults by translating two well-known scales that objectively measure basic understanding of math and probability: the 3-item numeracy scale developed by Schwartz and colleagues (the Schwartz scale) and its expanded version, the 11-item numeracy scale developed by Lipkus and colleagues (the Lipkus scale).ResultsParticipants' performances (n?=?300) on the scales were much higher than in original studies conducted in the United States (80% average item-wise correct response rate for Schwartz-J, and 87% for Lipkus-J). This high performance resulted in a ceiling effect on the distributions of both scores, which made it difficult to apply parametric statistical analysis, and limited the interpretation of statistical results. Nevertheless, the data provided some evidence for the reliability and validity of these scales: The reliability of the Japanese versions (Schwartz-J and Lipkus-J) was comparable to the original in terms of their internal consistency (Cronbach's ??=?0.53 for Schwartz-J and 0.72 for Lipkus-J). Convergent validity was suggested by positive correlations with an existing Japanese health literacy measure (the Test for Ability to Interpret Medical Information developed by Takahashi and colleagues) that contains some items relevant to numeracy. Furthermore, as shown in the previous studies, health numeracy was still associated with framing bias with individuals whose Lipkus-J performance was below the median being significantly influenced by how probability was framed when they rated surgical risks. A significant association was also found using Schwartz-J, which consisted of only three items.ConclusionsDespite relatively high levels of health numeracy according to these scales, numeracy measures are still important determinants underlying susceptibility to framing bias. This suggests that it is important in Japan to identify individuals with low numeracy skills so that risk information can be presented in a way that enables them to correctly understand it. Further investigation is required on effective numeracy measures for such an intervention in Japan.

Dataset Information

Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population.

Publications

Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets