Advertisement

Numeracy levels influence shared decision-making and surgical outcomes: A scoping review of the literature

Published:January 04, 2023DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.01.002

      Highlights

      • Many patients perform poorly on simple numeracy assessments.
      • This scoping review highlights the high degree of data heterogeneity among numeracy studies.
      • There is a lack of standardization among numeracy tools and measurements.
      • Patient numeracy is important for preoperative counseling, risk assessment and surgical outcomes.
      • Future research must integrate communication interventions following numeracy assessments.

      Abstract

      Background

      Health literacy has been widely studied with regard to medical decision-making and health care access, however research regarding numeracy - the ability to comprehend and attach meaning to numbers - is more limited.

      Methods

      A scoping review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. We screened 132 abstracts and 12 studies were included in the analysis.

      Results

      Surgical population numeracy ranged from 47 to 86.1%. We found heterogeneity in the scales used to measure numeracy and the cutoff values used to define adequate numeracy. Low numeracy was shown to influence the accuracy of patients’ responses to quality of life measures used to determine surgical outcomes and was associated with patient overestimation of pre-operative risk. Adequate numeracy was correlated with improved outcomes 2–4 years after bariatric surgery.

      Conclusions

      Patient numeracy is generally poor and has important implications for pre-operative risk understanding, accuracy of health measurement tools and long-term surgical outcomes.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The American Journal of Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Golbeck A.L.
        • Ahlers-Schmidt C.R.
        • Paschal A.M.
        • Dismuke S.E.
        A definition and operational framework for health numeracy.
        Am J Prev Med. 2015; 29: 375-376https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.06.012
      1. Highlights of the 2017 U.S. PIAAC Results Web Report (NCES 2020-777). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Available from: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/current_results.asp [Accessed March 2022].

        • Schwartz L.M.
        • Wolosin S.
        • Black W.C.
        • Welch H.G.
        The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography.
        Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127: 966-972https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003
        • Wiles M.D.
        • Duffy A.
        • Neill K.
        The numerical translation of verbal probability expressions by patients and clinicians in the context of peri-operative risk communication.
        Anaesthesia. 2020; 75: e39-e45https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14871
        • Garcia-Retamero R.
        • Galesic M.
        How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25: 1323-1329https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9
        • Chang M.E.
        • Baker S.J.
        • Dos Santos I.C.
        • et al.
        Health literacy in surgery.
        Health Lit Res Pract. 2020; 4: e46-e65https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20191121-01
        • Cox K.J.
        Counseling women with a previous cesarean birth: toward a shared decision-making partnership.
        J Midwifery Wom Health. 2014; 59: 237-245https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12177
        • Golbeck A.
        • Paschal A.
        • Jones A.
        • Hsiao T.
        Correlating reading comprehension and health numeracy among adults with low literacy.
        Patient Educ Counsel. 2010; 84: 132-134https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.05.030
        • Griffey R.T.
        • Melson A.T.
        • Lin M.J.
        • et al.
        Does numeracy correlate with measures of health literacy in the emergency department?.
        Acad Emerg Med. 2014; 21: 147-153https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12310
        • Malloy-Weir L.J.
        • Schwartz L.
        • Yost J.
        • McKibbon K.A.
        Empirical relationships between numeracy and treatment decision making: a scoping review of the literature.
        Patient Educ Counsel. 2016; 99: 310-325https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.002
        • McGowan J.
        • Sampson M.
        • Salzwedel D.M.
        • et al.
        PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 75: 40-46https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Lillie E.
        • Zarin W.
        • et al.
        PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation.
        Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169: 467-473https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
        • Arksey H.
        • O'Malley L.
        Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.
        Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8: 19-32https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
        • Peters M.D.
        • Godfrey C.M.
        • Khalil H.
        • et al.
        Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.
        Int J Evid Base Healthc. 2015; 13: 141-146https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
        • Dykhuis K.E.
        • Slowik L.
        • Bryce K.
        • et al.
        A new measure of health numeracy: Brief medical numbers test (BMNT).
        Psychosomatics. 2019; 60: 271-277https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psym.2018.07.004
        • Fagerlin A.
        • Zikmund-Fisher B.J.
        • Ubel P.A.
        • et al.
        Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale.
        Med Decis Making. 2017; 27: 672-680https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07304449
        • Lipkus I.M.
        • Samsa G.
        • Rimer B.K.
        General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples.
        Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 37-44https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100105
        • Woloshin S.
        • Schwartz L.M.
        • Moncur M.
        • et al.
        Assessing values for health: numeracy matters.
        Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 382-390https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100505
        • Schapira M.M.
        • Davids S.L.
        • McAuliffe T.L.
        • Nattinger A.B.
        Agreement between scales in the measurement of breast cancer risk perceptions.
        Risk Anal. 2004; 24: 665-673https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00466.x
        • Cokely E.T.
        • Galesic M.
        • Schulz E.
        • et al.
        Measuring risk literacy: the Berlin numeracy test.
        Judgment Decision Making. 2012; 7: 25-47
        • Parker R.M.
        • Baker D.W.
        • Williams M.V.
        • Nurss J.
        The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients' literacy skills.
        J Gen Intern Med. 1995; 10: 537-541https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02640361
        • Brown S.M.
        • Culver J.O.
        • Osann K.E.
        • et al.
        Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates.
        Patient Educ Counsel. 2011; 83: 92-98https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.027
        • Garcia-Retamero R.
        • Cokely E.T.
        • Wicki B.
        • Joeris A.
        Improving risk literacy in surgeons.
        Patient Educ Counsel. 2016; 99: 1156-1161https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.013
        • Etnel J.R.G.
        • Helbing W.A.
        • Roos-Hesselink J.W.
        • et al.
        Patient and physician view on patient information and decision-making in congenital aortic and pulmonary valve surgery.
        Open Heart. 2018; 5 (e000872-e000872)https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2018-000872
        • Korteland N.M.
        • Bras F.J.
        • van Hout F.M.
        • et al.
        Prosthetic aortic valve selection: current patient experience, preferences and knowledge.
        Open Heart. 2015; 2e000237https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2015-000237
        • Hayter R.R.
        • Hess A.S.
        Health numeracy and relative risk comprehension in perioperative patients and physicians.
        Anesth Analg. 2020; 131: 579-585https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000004816
        • Johnson T.V.
        • Abbasi A.
        • Schoenberg E.D.
        • et al.
        Numeracy among trainees: are we preparing physicians for evidence-based medicine?.
        J Surg Educ. 2014; 71: 211-215https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.07.013
        • Minhas A.S.
        • Jones G.K.
        • Pallazola V.A.
        • et al.
        Discordance of patient and provider perceptions of the meaning of verbal estimates of perioperative risk.
        Perioperat. Care Operat Room Manag. 2018; 13: 18-23https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcorm.2018.11.002
        • Shaffer V.A.
        • Tomek S.
        • Hulsey L.
        The effect of narrative information in a publicly available patient decision aid for early-stage breast cancer.
        Health Commun. 2014; 29: 64-73https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.717341
        • Hecht L.
        • Cain S.
        • Clark-Sienkiewicz S.M.
        • et al.
        Health literacy, health numeracy, and cognitive functioning among bariatric surgery candidates.
        Obes Surg. 2019; 29: 4138-4141https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-04149-z
        • Miller-Matero L.R.
        • Hecht L.
        • Patel S.
        • et al.
        The influence of health literacy and health numeracy on weight loss outcomes following bariatric surgery.
        Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2021; 17: 384-389https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2020.09.021
        • Schwartz S.R.
        • McDowell J.
        • Yueh B.
        Numeracy and the shortcomings of utility assessment in head and neck cancer patients.
        Head Neck. 2004; 26: 401-407https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.10383
        • Kaiser K.
        • Cameron K.A.
        • Beaumont J.
        • et al.
        What does risk of future cancer mean to breast cancer patients?.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019; 175: 579-584https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05182-3
        • Boughey J.C.
        • Attai D.J.
        • Chen S.L.
        • et al.
        Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy consensus statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: additional considerations and a framework for shared decision making.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 3106-3111https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5408-8
        • Montagna G.
        • Morrow M.
        Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in breast cancer: what to discuss with patients.
        Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2020; 20: 159-166https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2020.1732213
        • Covey E.
        Method of Communicating Risk Affects Patient Decision Making.
        General Surgery News, 2021, December 29 (Accessed March, 2022)
        • Anderson B.L.
        • Obrecht N.A.
        • Chapman G.B.
        • et al.
        Physicians' communication of Down syndrome screening test results: the influence of physician numeracy.
        Genet Med. 2011; 13: 744-749https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821a370f
        • Garcia-Retamero R.
        • Wicki B.
        • Cokely E.T.
        • al e
        Factors predicting surgeons' preferred and actual roles in interactions with their patients.
        Health Psychol. 2014; 33: 920-928https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000061
        • Schapira M.M.
        • Fletcher K.E.
        • Ganschow P.S.
        • et al.
        Improving communication in breast cancer treatment consultation: use of a computer test of health numeracy.
        J Womens Health. 2019; 28: 1407-1417https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7347
        • Han P.K.
        • Joekes K.
        • Elwyn G.
        • et al.
        Development and evaluation of a risk communication curriculum for medical students.
        Patient Educ Counsel. 2014; 94: 43-49https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.009
        • Fagerlin A.
        • Zikmund-Fisher B.J.
        • Ubel P.A.
        Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103: 1436-1443https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr318
        • Dolan J.G.
        • Cherkasky O.A.
        • Li Q.
        • et al.
        Should health numeracy be assessed objectively or subjectively?.
        Med Decis Making. 2016; 36: 868-875https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15584332
        • Taha J.
        • Sharit J.
        • Czaja S.J.
        The impact of numeracy ability and technology skills on older adults' performance of health management tasks using a patient portal.
        J Appl Gerontol. 2014; 33: 416-436https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464812447283
        • Nelson W.
        • Reyna V.F.
        • Fagerlin A.
        • et al.
        Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice.
        Ann Behav Med. 2008; 35: 261-274https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9037-8
        • Roy M.
        • Corkum J.P.
        • Urbach D.R.
        • et al.
        Health literacy among surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        World J Surg. 2019; 43: 96-106https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4754-z
        • Korteland N.M.
        • Bras F.J.
        • van Hout F.M.
        • et al.
        Prosthetic aortic valve selection: current patient experience, preferences and knowledge.
        Open Heart. 2015; 2e000237https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2015-000237
        • Jones J.
        • Rosaasen N.
        • Taylor J.
        • et al.
        Health literacy, knowledge, and patient satisfaction before kidney transplantation.
        Transplant Proc. 2016; 48: 2608-2614https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2016.07.018