IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i4p501-511.html

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. Ellen Peters & Irwin P. Levin, 2008. "Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(6), pages 435-448, August.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Yang, Bi & Ye, Tian & Liu, Stephanie Q. & Zhao, Yujie, 2024. "How consumers process online hotel ratings," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Jakub Traczyk & Agata Sobkow & Kamil Fulawka & Jakub Kus & Dafina Petrova & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2018. "Numerate decision makers don't use more effortful strategies unless it pays: A process tracing investigation of skilled and adaptive strategy selection in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 372-381, July.
    3. Sobkow, Agata & Olszewska, Angelika & Traczyk, Jakub, 2020. "Multiple numeric competencies predict decision outcomes beyond fluid intelligence and cognitive reflection," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    4. 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. Muhammad Waqas & Alishba Hania & Farzan Yahya & Iqra Malik, 2023. "Enhancing Cybersecurity: The Crucial Role of Self-Regulation, Information Processing, and Financial Knowledge in Combating Phishing Attacks," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    2. Samdruk Dharshing & Stefanie Lena Hille, 2017. "The Energy Paradox Revisited: Analyzing the Role of Individual Differences and Framing Effects in Information Perception," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-508, December.
    3. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    4. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Emmanuel Kemel & Corina Paraschiv, 2018. "Deciding about human lives: an experimental measure of risk attitudes under prospect theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 163-192, June.
    7. Irwin P. Levin & Elaine A. Bossard & Gary J. Gaeth & Haoyang Yan, 2014. "The combined role of task, child's age and individual differences in understanding decision processes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(3), pages 274-286, May.
    8. Renata M. Heilman & Petko Kusev & Mircea Miclea & Joseph Teal & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Are Impulsive Decisions Always Irrational? An Experimental Investigation of Impulsive Decisions in the Domains of Gains and Losses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    9. Nathaniel J. S. Ashby, 2017. "Numeracy predicts preference consistency: Deliberative search heuristics increase choice consistency for choices from description and experience," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 128-139, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Talya Miron-Shatz & Yaniv Hanoch & Glen M. Doniger & Zehra B. Omer & Elissa M. Ozanne, 2014. "Subjective but not objective numeracy influences willingness to pay for BRCA1/2 genetic testing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 152-158, March.
    12. McElroy, Todd & Dickinson, David L., 2010. "Thoughtful days and valenced nights: How much will you think about the problem?," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(7), pages 516-523, December.
    13. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & John Geweke & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2016. "Risk Presentation and Portfolio Choice," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 20(1), pages 201-229.
    14. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno, 2018. "All’s fair in taxation: A framing experiment with local politicians," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 26-40.
    15. Mondal, Supratik & Traczyk, Jakub, 2023. "Conditionality of adaptiveness: Investigating the relationship between numeracy and adaptive behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Quiroga Gutierrez, Ana Cecilia, 2024. "Picture this: Making health insurance choices easier for those who need it," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Alaina N. Talboy & Sandra L. Schneider, 2018. "Improving Understanding of Diagnostic Test Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(5), pages 573-583, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Jonathan Corbin & Todd McElroy & Cassie Black, 2010. "Memory reflected in our decisions: Higher working memory capacity predicts greater bias in risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 110-115, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.