» Articles » PMID: 16307623

Patients and Medical Statistics. Interest, Confidence, and Ability

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2005 Nov 26
PMID 16307623
Citations 28
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: People are increasingly presented with medical statistics. There are no existing measures to assess their level of interest or confidence in using medical statistics.

Objective: To develop 2 new measures, the STAT-interest and STAT-confidence scales, and assess their reliability and validity.

Design: Survey with retest after approximately 2 weeks.

Subjects: Two hundred and twenty-four people were recruited from advertisements in local newspapers, an outpatient clinic waiting area, and a hospital open house.

Measures: We developed and revised 5 items on interest in medical statistics and 3 on confidence understanding statistics.

Results: Study participants were mostly college graduates (52%); 25% had a high school education or less. The mean age was 53 (range 20 to 84) years. Most paid attention to medical statistics (6% paid no attention). The mean (SD) STAT-interest score was 68 (17) and ranged from 15 to 100. Confidence in using statistics was also high: the mean (SD) STAT-confidence score was 65 (19) and ranged from 11 to 100. STAT-interest and STAT-confidence scores were moderately correlated (r=.36, P<.001). Both scales demonstrated good test-retest repeatability (r=.60, .62, respectively), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.70 and 0.78), and usability (individual item nonresponse ranged from 0% to 1.3%). Scale scores correlated only weakly with scores on a medical data interpretation test (r=.15 and .26, respectively).

Conclusion: The STAT-interest and STAT-confidence scales are usable and reliable. Interest and confidence were only weakly related to the ability to actually use data.

Citing Articles

Understanding Cancer Treatment Decision Making Among Cancer Survivors: Weighing Cancer Recurrence Versus Cardiotoxicity.

Streck B, Vo J, Brandt C, Klein W, Han P, Ferrer R Psychooncology. 2025; 34(1):e70061.

PMID: 39822080 PMC: 11739822. DOI: 10.1002/pon.70061.


Perceptions of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Gaysynsky A, Senft Everson N, Heley K, Chou W JMIR Infodemiology. 2024; 4:e51127.

PMID: 38687591 PMC: 11094599. DOI: 10.2196/51127.


Patterns of Change in Parental Health Literacy in Relation to Children's Oral Health.

Schmiege S, Jiang L, Albino J, Johnson R, Wilson A, Brega A Health Lit Res Pract. 2023; 7(2):e89-e98.

PMID: 37162254 PMC: 10169466. DOI: 10.3928/24748307-20230419-01.


An Exploratory Study on the Impacts of Individual Skills and Health Information Exposure on Perceptions of Cancer Control and Expert Competence.

Slavik C, Yiannakoulias N, Wilton R, Scott F J Cancer Educ. 2023; 38(5):1584-1591.

PMID: 37103679 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-023-02303-x.


Public Engagement in Digital Recommendations for Promoting Healthy Parental Behaviours from Preconception through the First 1000 Days.

Cinelli G, Croci I, Gesualdo F, Pandolfi E, Miller K, Tozzi A Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(2).

PMID: 36674084 PMC: 9859030. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20021329.


References
1.
Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Welch H . Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Med Decis Making. 2005; 25(3):290-300. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276860. View

2.
Suinn R, Winston E . The Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale, a brief version: psychometric data. Psychol Rep. 2003; 92(1):167-73. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.2003.92.1.167. View

3.
Winker M, Flanagin A, White J, Andrews K, Kennett R, DeAngelis C . Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association. JAMA. 2000; 283(12):1600-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.12.1600. View

4.
Nease Jr R, Brooks W . Patient desire for information and decision making in health care decisions: the Autonomy Preference Index and the Health Opinion Survey. J Gen Intern Med. 1995; 10(11):593-600. DOI: 10.1007/BF02602742. View

5.
Sheridan S, Harris R, Woolf S . Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004; 26(1):56-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.011. View