The DOI matches its Crossref record; 129 of the 129 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Implications of Numeracy: Theory and Practice
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Low numeracy is pervasive and constrains informed patient choice, reduces medication compliance, limits access to treatments, impairs risk communication, and affects medical outcomes; therefore, it is incumbent upon providers to minimize its adverse effects. PURPOSE: We provide an overview of research on health numeracy and discuss its implications in clinical contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Low numeracy cannot be reliably inferred on the basis of patients' education, intelligence, or other observable characteristics. Objective and subjective assessments of numeracy are available in short forms and could be used to tailor health communication. Low scorers on these assessments are subject to cognitive biases, irrelevant cues (e.g., mood), and sharper temporal discounting. Because prevention of the leading causes of death (e.g., cancer and cardiovascular disease) depends on taking action now to prevent serious consequences later, those low in numeracy are likely to require more explanation of risk to engage in prevention behaviors. Visual displays can be used to make numerical relations more transparent, and different types of displays have different effects (e.g., greater risk avoidance). Ironically, superior quantitative processing seems to be achieved by focusing on qualitative gist and affective meaning, which has important implications for empowering patients to take advantage of the evidence in evidence-based medicine.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things
Lakoff, G. (1987) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 · Cited by 12,386
Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making
Frederick, S. (2005) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/089533005775196732 · Cited by 5,256
Yu, S. M. (1998) · Maternal and Child Health Journal · doi:10.1023/a:1021801927353 · Cited by 4,056
Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x · Cited by 3,885
Self-citationThe empirical case for two systems of reasoning.
Sloman, S. A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.1.3 · Cited by 3,848
Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious
Epstein, S. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.8.709 · Cited by 2,883 · cited 1×
“Epstein [ 97 ] developed a series of measures of intuitive or “experiential” thinking versus analytical or rational thinking, which have been extended by Slovic and colleagues [98].”
Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature
DeWalt, D. A., Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K. N., & Pignone, M. P. (2004) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40153.x · Cited by 2,309
Quick Assessment of Literacy in Primary Care: The Newest Vital Sign
Weiss, B. D. (2005) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.405 · Cited by 2,215
The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics.
Hersh, R., & Dehaene, S. (1998) · The American Mathematical Monthly · doi:10.2307/2589308 · Cited by 2,052
Nutbeam, D. (1998) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/13.4.349 · Cited by 2,044
Cited by
A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory
Reyna, V. F. (2008) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x08327066 · Cited by 602
Self-citationGarcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2017) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720817690634 · Cited by 298
Evaluation of Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints in Chronic Disease
(2010) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/12869 · Cited by 276
Statistical Numeracy for Health: A Cross-cultural Comparison With Probabilistic National Samples
Galesic, M. (2010) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.481 · Cited by 221
Solomon, J., Scherer, A. M., Exe, N. L., Witteman, H. O., Fagerlin, A., & Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2851581.2892523 · Cited by 21
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Nelson, W., Reyna, V. F., Fagerlin, A., Lipkus, I., & Peters, E.
- Venue
- Annals of Behavioral Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 261-274
- ISSN
- 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
- 0883-6612
- 1532-4796
- OpenAlex
- W2025097148
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 129
- FWCI
- 33.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Implications of Numeracy: Theory and Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s12160-008-9037-8
- The paper
- Nelson, W., Reyna, V. F., Fagerlin, A., Lipkus, I., & Peters, E. (2008). Clinical Implications of Numeracy: Theory and Practice. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9037-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.