The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Statistical Numeracy for Health: A Cross-cultural Comparison With Probabilistic National Samples
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In a 2010 survey on statistical numeracy across the US and Germany, many people did not understand relatively simple statements that involve statistics concepts.
“In a survey Galesic and Garcia-Retamero [38] conducted in 2010 on statistical numeracy across the US and Germany, they found that many people do not understand relatively simple statements that involve statistics concepts.”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [38]
Almost 30% of participants could not answer whether 1 in 10, 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 represents the largest risk.
“almost 30% could not answer whether 1 in 10, 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 represents the largest risk.”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [38]
20% of the German and US participants could not say which of 1%, 5%, or 10% represents the biggest risk of getting a disease.
“20% of the German and US participants could not say”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [38]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty
Bhatt, U., Antorán, J., Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., Sattigeri, P., Fogliato, R., Melançon, G., Krishnan, R., Stanley, J., Tickoo, O., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462571 · Cited by 300
Natural Language Generation enhances human decision-making with uncertain information
Gkatzia, D., Lemon, O., & Rieser, V. (2016) · Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-2043 · Cited by 59
Xu, Z., Song, T., & Lee, Y.-C. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103455 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Galesic, M.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- 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