Cited by 221Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareStatistics Education and Methodologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Statistical Numeracy for Health: A Cross-cultural Comparison With Probabilistic National Samples

Galesic, Mirta·2010·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Statistical numeracy is essential for understanding health-related risks and making informed medical decisions. However, this concept has not been investigated with probabilistic national samples or compared cross-culturally. We sought (1) to investigate differences in the level of statistical numeracy between 2 countries with different educational and medical systems-the United States and Germany; (2) to study the relationship between statistical numeracy and demographic characteristics such as age, sex, and education; and (3) to test whether a subjective measure of numeracy is a valid indicator of objective measures. Methods In a survey of probabilistic, representative national samples in Germany and the United States, conducted in July and August 2008, we asked questions testing objective and subjective statistical numeracy. Results German participants had higher numeracy skills than did US participants. On average, 68.5% (SE, 1.1%) and 64.5% (SE, 1.3%), respectively, of items testing objective numeracy were answered correctly. Subjective estimates of numeracy were a good indicator of the objective measures. There is a large gap in numeracy skills between persons with lower and higher educational levels, particularly in the United States. Conclusions Physicians should be aware that many patients may not understand all information relevant to making an informed decision. Fortunately, they can identify such patients and use nonnumerical presentation formats, such…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.481

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Galesic, M.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2010-03-08
Volume
170
Issue
5
Pages
462
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082834741
Cited by
221
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 31
FWCI
40.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
health literacy, risk communication, informed decision-making, cross-cultural comparison, United States, Germany, educational attainment, graphical display
MeSH terms
Cross-Cultural Comparison, Decision Making, Educational Status, Germany, Humans, Problem Solving, Surveys and Questionnaires, Statistics as Topic, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review