Dataset Information

An Evaluation of Health Numeracy among Radiation Therapists and Dosimetrists.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Medical errors in radiation oncology sometimes involve tasks reliant on practitioners' grasp of numeracy. Numeracy has been shown to be suboptimal across various health care professionals. Herein, we assess health numeracy among American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT) members.

Methods and materials

The Numeracy Understanding for Medicine instrument (NUMi), an instrument to measure numeracy in the general population, was adapted to oncology for this study and distributed to ASRT members (n = 14,228) in 2017. Per NUMi scoring, health numeracy scores were categorized as low (0-7), low average (8-12), high average (13-17), or high (18-20). The impact of cGy versus Gy on numeracy performance was investigated. Spearman's rho and a Wilcox-Mann-Whitney test were used for comparisons between the different groups.

Results

A total of 662 eligible participants completed the instrument and identified as radiation oncology professionals. In the cGy and Gy NUMi scores, approximately 2% of respondents scored low-average, approximately 40% scored high-average, and approximately 58% scored high, with a median score of 18.0. Although the optimum NUMi score for ASRT members is unknown, one might expect our cohort to have numeracy skills at least as high as college freshmen. Roughly one-sixth of our study group scored at or below the average score of college freshmen (NUMi = 15). In the subset analysis of NUMi questions pertaining to radiation dose unit (cGy vs Gy), respondents performed better with cGy (mean score: 2.94; range, 2-3) versus Gy (mean: 2.91; range, 0-3; P = .011).

Conclusions

In this study of limited sample size, overall numeracy is quite good compared with the general population. However, the range of scores is wide, and some respondents have lower scores that may be concerning, suggesting that numeracy may be an issue that requires improvement for a subset of the studied cohort. Performance was superior with the unit cGy; thus, the adoption of cGy as the standard unit is reasonable.

SUBMITTER: Peters GW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8134660 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. Numeracy skills are important for medical decision making as lower numeracy is associated with misinterpreting statistical health risks. Math anxiety, characterized by negative emotions about numerical tasks, and lower subjective numeracy (i.e., self-assessments of numerical competence) are also associated with poor risk comprehension. Objective. To explore independent and mediated associations of math anxiety, numerical ability, and subjective numeracy with risk comprehension and to ascertain whether their associations are specific to the health domain. Methods. Objective numeracy was measured with a 14-item test. Math anxiety and subjective numeracy were assessed with self-report scales. Risk comprehension was measured with a 12-item test. In experiment 1, risk comprehension items were limited to scenarios in the health domain. In experiment 2, participants were randomly assigned to receive numerically equivalent risk comprehension items in either a health or nonhealth domain. Results. Linear regression analyses revealed that individuals with higher objective numeracy were more likely to respond correctly to the risk comprehension items, as were individuals with higher subjective numeracy. Higher math anxiety was associated with a lower likelihood of correct responding when controlling for objective numeracy but not when controlling for subjective numeracy. Mediation analyses indicated that math anxiety may undermine risk comprehension in 3 ways, including through 1) objective numeracy, 2) subjective numeracy, and 3) objective and subjective numeracy in serial, with subjective numeracy mediating the association between objective numeracy and risk comprehension. Findings did not differ by domain. Conclusions. Math anxiety, objective numeracy, and subjective numeracy are associated with risk comprehension through unique pathways. Education initiatives for improving health risk comprehension may be most effective if jointly aimed at tackling numerical ability as well as negative emotions and self-evaluations related to numeracy.

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.