Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
  • JABFM On Facebook
OtherResearch Letter

Numeracy and Medicine: Key Family Physician Attitudes about Communicating Probability with Patients

Robert Gramling, Jennifer E. Irvin, Justin Nash, Christopher Sciamanna and Larry Culpepper
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice November 2004, 17 (6) 473; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.17.6.473
Robert Gramling
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer E. Irvin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Justin Nash
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher Sciamanna
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Larry Culpepper
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor: Communicating information about risk provides the foundation for preventive counseling, yet recent research challenges assumptions that providing objective, statistical information facilitates meaningful comprehension of probability.1 We sought to understand how family physicians currently value the use of numerical versus non-numerical formats for talking with patients about risk in everyday practice and how confident they were with each mode of communication.

We mailed a brief questionnaire to all members of the Massachusetts Academy of Family Practice (MAFP) (n = 691) with 2 follow-up contacts to nonresponders at 3-week intervals. The questionnaire included a physician ID that was linked to the MAFP demographic database for comparison of responders and nonresponders. Confidence was measured in response to the following 2 items: “I can effectively communicate risk numerically (probability, percent).” and, “I can effectively communicate risk qualitatively (‘high,’ ‘low’).” Importance was measured in response to the following statement accompanying each of the self-efficacy items: “I consider this important to my practice.” Pilot testing among family physicians confirmed that the term “qualitative” best captured the realm of subjective, non-numerical communication. Responses were recorded on a 4-point ordinal scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). The Boston University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Three hundred family physicians returned the survey (43% response rate). Responders were more likely to be female than nonresponders (46.1% vs 36.0%; P < .01) but no differences were found with regard to mean age (44.7 versus. 45.9 years; P = .72) or years since medical school graduation (16.9 vs 17.1; P = .79).

Importance

Ninety-three percent of physicians agreed with the statement that communicating risk qualitatively was important to their practices (42% strongly agreed). Seventy-six percent perceived numerical risk communication to be important (26% strongly agreed). Only 5.7% percent did not consider communicating risk in either domain to be important to their practice. In terms of relative importance, 189 of 300 (63%) endorsed qualitative and numerical communication as equally important. Of the remaining 111 physicians, 94% endorsed the importance of communicating qualitatively more strongly than numerically.

Confidence

Eighty-seven percent agreed (26% strongly) with the statement that they could communicate risk effectively in the qualitative format. In contrast, only 36% agreed (9% strongly) with the same statement regarding the numerical format. Approximately 1 in 10 (11.3%) considered themselves ineffective in communicating risk either with or without the use of numbers. In terms of relative confidence, 104 of 300 (34.7%) felt equally confident in their qualitative and numerical communication skills. Of the remaining 196, 97% more strongly endorsed their confidence with communicating qualitatively than numerically.

This study found an overwhelming endorsement of the clinical importance of risk communication and a relatively higher confidence with qualitative versus numerical formats. Consistent with the Theory of Reasoned Action2 and the Theory of Self-Efficacy,3 these findings would suggest that family physicians are likely to communicate about risk with their patients and that they are predisposed to using qualitative over numerical methods for doing so. Although we do not know how nonresponders might differ from responders, we expect any response bias might reflect more enthusiasm for risk-based counseling. Therefore, our findings might overestimate the proportion of those perceiving risk communication to be important to their practice. However, because the perceived importance seems highly correlated with confidence, response bias should not threaten the validity of our main finding of the relative propensity for engaging qualitative over numerical risk communication with patients. As more models for predicting future health events are used in preventive decision making, researchers and policy-makers should be aware of this existing propensity to use non-numerical methods for discussing probability in clinical practice.

References

  1. ↵
    Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 37–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1980.
  3. ↵
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977; 84: 191–215.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice: 17 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice
Vol. 17, Issue 6
1 Nov 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Numeracy and Medicine: Key Family Physician Attitudes about Communicating Probability with Patients
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
10 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Numeracy and Medicine: Key Family Physician Attitudes about Communicating Probability with Patients
Robert Gramling, Jennifer E. Irvin, Justin Nash, Christopher Sciamanna, Larry Culpepper
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice Nov 2004, 17 (6) 473; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.17.6.473

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Numeracy and Medicine: Key Family Physician Attitudes about Communicating Probability with Patients
Robert Gramling, Jennifer E. Irvin, Justin Nash, Christopher Sciamanna, Larry Culpepper
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice Nov 2004, 17 (6) 473; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.17.6.473
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Importance
    • Confidence
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • How are non-numerical prognostic statements interpreted and are they subject to positive bias?
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Factors Associated with Intention to Vaccinate Children 0-11 Years of Age Against COVID-19
  • Perceived Effectiveness and Overall Satisfaction of Using a Toilet Stool to Prevent or Treat Constipation: An Analysis of Online Comments
  • Communication of Drug Efficacy Information via a Popular Online Platform
Show more Research Letters

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2023 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire