• Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2020

    Health Numeracy and Relative Risk Comprehension in Perioperative Patients and Physicians.

    • Ryan R Hayter and Aaron S Hess.
    • From the Departments of Anesthesiology.
    • Anesth. Analg. 2020 Aug 1; 131 (2): 579-585.

    BackgroundHelping patients to understand relative risks is challenging. In discussions with patients, physicians often use numbers to describe hazards, make comparisons, and establish relevance. Patients with a poor understanding of numbers-poor "health numeracy"-also have difficulty making decisions and coping with chronic conditions. Although the importance of "health literacy" in perioperative populations is recognized, health numeracy has not been well studied. Our aim was to compare understanding of numbers, risk, and risk modification between a patient population awaiting surgery under general anesthesia and attending physicians at the same center.MethodsWe performed a single-center cross-sectional survey study to compare patients' and physicians' health numeracy. The study instrument was based on the Schwartz-Lipkus survey and included 3 simple health numeracy questions and 2 risk reduction questions in the anesthesiology domain. The survey was mailed to patients over the age of 18 scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia between June and September 2019, as well as attending physicians at the study center.ResultsTwo hundred thirteen of 502 (42%) patient surveys sent and 268 of 506 (53%) physician surveys sent were returned. Median patient score was 4 of 5, but 32% had a score of ≤3. Patients significantly overestimated their total scores by an average of 0.5 points (estimated [mean ± standard deviation (SD)] = 4.3 ± 1.2 vs actual 3.8 ± 1.3; P < .001). Health numeracy was significantly associated with higher educational level (gamma = 0.351; P < .001) and higher-income level (gamma = 0.397; P < .001). Physicians' health numeracy was significantly higher than the patients' (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 5 [4-5] vs 4 [3-5]; P < .001). There was no significant difference between physicians' self-estimated and actual total numeracy score (mean ± SD = 4.8 ± 0.6 vs 4.7 ± 0.6; P = .372). Simple health numeracy (questions 1-3) was predictive of correct risk reduction responses (questions 4, 5) for both patients (gamma = 0.586; P < .001) and physicians (gamma = 0.558; P = .006).ConclusionsPatients had poor health numeracy compared to physicians and tended to overrate their abilities. A small proportion of physicians also had poor numeracy. Poor health numeracy was associated with incomprehension of risk modification, suggesting that some patients may not understand treatment efficacy. These disparities suggest a need for further inquiry into how to improve patient comprehension of risk modification.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…