Physicians' communication of Down syndrome screening test results: The influence of physician numeracy

被引:27
作者
Anderson, Britta L. [1 ,2 ]
Obrecht, Natalie A. [3 ]
Chapman, Gretchen B. [4 ]
Driscoll, Deborah A. [5 ]
Schulkin, Jay [1 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Amer Coll Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Dept Res, Washington, DC 20024 USA
[2] American Univ, Dept Psychol, Washington, DC 20016 USA
[3] William Paterson Univ, Dept Psychol, Wayne, NJ USA
[4] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Psychol, Piscataway, NJ 08855 USA
[5] Univ Penn, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Sch Med & Hlth Syst, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[6] Georgetown Univ, Sch Med, Ctr Brain Basis Cognit, Washington, DC USA
关键词
Down syndrome; screening; numeracy; communication; obstetrician-gynecologists; COMPREHENSION;
D O I
10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821a370f
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Purpose: We investigated three questions: (1) How do obstetrician-gynecologists communicate positive and negative test results? (2) When reporting screening test results, do obstetrician-gynecologists use quantitative or qualitative information? and (3) Is physician numeracy (i.e., the ability to use and understand numbers) associated with use of quantitative or qualitative information? Method: Obstetrician-gynecologists (N = 203; 55.6% response rate) who were members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists completed a survey about their communication of Down syndrome screening test results, an Objective Numeracy Scale, and the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Results: Higher scores on the Subjective Numeracy Scale and younger age predicted obstetrician-gynecologists' use of numbers to explain testing results. The Objective Numeracy Scale did not predict use of numbers. Gender was correlated with scores on the Subjective Numeracy Scale (r = 0.2) and the Subjective Numeracy Scale-Ability Subscale (r = 0.3), with men scoring higher than women when controlling for age. Open-ended questions revealed that communication strategies vary, with approximately one in three obstetrician-gynecologists providing numerical information, and frequency format being the commonly used numerical format. Conclusion: Although physicians are often overlooked in the problem of low health literacy, it is important that we continue to investigate the impact of physician numeracy on patient care. Genet Med 2011: 13(8): 744-749.
引用
收藏
页码:744 / 749
页数:6
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]  
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins, 2007, Obstet Gynecol, V109, P217
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2007, Psychological science in the public interest, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1539-6053.2008.00033.X
[3]   Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study [J].
Bramwell, Ros ;
West, Helen ;
Salmon, Peter .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 333 (7562) :284-286A
[4]   Screening for Down syndrome: changing practice of obstetricians [J].
Driscoll, Deborah A. ;
Morgan, Maria A. ;
Schulkin, Jay .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 200 (04) :459.e1-459.e9
[5]   Health literacy and numeracy [J].
Estrada, C ;
Barnes, V ;
Collins, C .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1999, 282 (06) :527-527
[6]   Measuring numeracy without a Math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale [J].
Fagerlin, Angela ;
Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. ;
Ubel, Peter A. ;
Jankovic, Aleksandra ;
Derry, Holly A. ;
Smith, Dylan M. .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2007, 27 (05) :672-680
[7]   Patients' understanding of medical risks: Implications for genetic counseling [J].
Grimes, DA ;
Snively, GR .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1999, 93 (06) :910-914
[8]   GENDER DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE - A METAANALYSIS [J].
HYDE, JS ;
FENNEMA, E ;
LAMON, SJ .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1990, 107 (02) :139-155
[9]  
Parker RM, 1999, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V281, P552
[10]   Age Differences in Dual Information-processing Modes Implications for Cancer Decision Making [J].
Peters, Ellen ;
Diefenbach, Michael A. ;
Hess, Thomas M. ;
Vastfjall, Daniel .
CANCER, 2008, 113 (12) :3556-3567