Skip to main content
Log in

Cancer Patients Numeracy and Preferences for Information Presentation—a Survey Among German Cancer Patients

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Numeracy is highly relevant for therapy safety and effective self-management. Worse numeracy leads to poor health outcome. Most medical information is expressed in numbers. Considering the complexity of decisions, more information on the patient’s ability to understand information is needed. We used a standardized questionnaire. Content was self-perception of numeracy, preferences regarding decision-making with respect to medical issues, and preferred content of information from four possible answers on side effect of cancer therapies (insomnia) within two scenarios. Overall, 301 participants answered the questionnaire. Presentation of facts in numbers was rated as helpful or very helpful (59.4%). Higher numeracy was associated with higher appreciation for presentation in numbers (p = 0.002). Although participants indicated presentation of facts in numbers as helpful in general, the favored answer in two concrete scenarios was verbal and descriptive instead of numerical. Numeracy is highly relevant for therapy safety and effective self-management. Health professionals need more knowledge about patient’s ability and preferences with respect to presentation of health information. An individualized patient communication might be the best strategy to discuss treatment plans. We need to understand in which situations patients benefit from numerical presentation and how managing numerical data might influence decision processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sørensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J et al (2012) Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 12:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-80

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization (2013) Health literacy: the solid facts. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sørensen K, Pelikan JM, Röthlin F, Ganahl K, Slonska Z, Doyle G, Fullam J, Kondilis B, Agrafiotis D, Uiters E, Falcon M, Mensing M, Tchamov K, Broucke S, Brand H (2015) Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU). Eur J Pub Health 25:1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K (2011) Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 155:97–107. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2012) Nationaler Krebsplan - Handlungsfelder, Ziele und Umsetzungsempfehlungen [National Cancer Plan - fields of action, objectives and implementation of recommendations]. Druckerei im Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A et al (2013) Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13 Suppl 2:S7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Spiegle G, Al-Sukhni E, Schmocker S et al (2013) Patient decision aids for cancer treatment. Cancer 119:189–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rothman RL, Housam R, Weiss H, Davis D, Gregory R, Gebretsadik T, Shintani A, Elasy TA (2006) Patient understanding of food labels: the role of literacy and numeracy. Am J Prev Med 31:391–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Keinki C, Seilacher E, Ebel M, Ruetters D, Kessler I, Stellamanns J, Rudolph I, Huebner J (2016) Information needs of cancer patients and perception of impact of the disease, of self-efficacy, and locus of control. J Cancer Educ 31:610–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-015-0860-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G (2018) The barrier to informed choice in cancer screening: statistical illiteracy in physicians and patients. Recent Results Cancer Res 210:207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64310-6_13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McNaughton CD, Cavanaugh KL, Kripalani S et al (2015) Validation of a short, 3-item version of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Making 35:932–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15581800

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Henrikson NB, Davison BJ, Berry DL (2011) Measuring decisional control preferences in men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol 29:606–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2011.615383

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh JA, Sloan JA, Atherton PJ et al (2010) Preferred roles in treatment decision making among patients with cancer: a pooled analysis of studies using the control preferences scale. Am J Manag Care 16:688–696

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P (1997) The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res 29:21–43

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bartholomäus M, Zomorodbakhsch B, Micke O, et al Cancer patients’ needs for virtues and physicians’ characteristics in physician- patient-communication - a survey among patient representatives. Submitted

  17. Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G (2012) Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 86:9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shields CG, Morrow GR, Griggs J, Mallinger J, Roscoe J, Wade JL, Dakhil SR, Fitch TR (2004) Decision-making role preferences of patients receiving adjuvant cancer treatment: a university of Rochester cancer center community clinical oncology program. Support Cancer Ther 1:119–126. https://doi.org/10.3816/SCT.2004.n.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E (2008) Preferences for involvement in treatment decision making of patients with cancer: a review of the literature. Eur J Oncol Nurs 12:299–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2008.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tricou C, Yennu S, Ruer M, et al (2017) Decisional control preferences of patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care. Palliat Support Care 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951517000803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tariman JD, Berry DL, Cochrane B, Doorenbos A, Schepp K (2010) Preferred and actual participation roles during health care decision making in persons with cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol 21:1145–1151. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R (2006) Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns 60:102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gaston CM, Mitchell G (2005) Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med 61:2252–2264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R (2011) Do low-numeracy people avoid shared decision making? Health Psychol 30:336–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Butow PN, Maclean M, Dunn SM, Tattersall MHN, Boyer MJ (1997) The dynamics of change: cancer patients’ preferences for information, involvement and support. Ann Oncol 8:857–863

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Vogel BA, Bengel J, Helmes AW (2008) Information and decision making: patients’ needs and experiences in the course of breast cancer treatment. Patient Educ Couns 71:79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Tong C (2011) Information that affects patients’ treatment choices for early stage prostate cancer: a review. Can J Urol 18:5998–6006

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yennu S, Rodrigues LF, Shamieh OM, Tricou C, Filbet M, Naing K, Ramaswamy A, Perez-Cruz PE, Bautista MJS, Bunge S, Muckaden MA, Sewram V, Fakrooden S, Noguera Tejedor A, Rao SS, Williams JL, Cantu H, Hui D, Reddy SK, Bruera E (2016) A multicenter study of patients decisional control preferences in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:6578–6578. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.6578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Colley A, Halpern J, Paul S, Micco G, Lahiff M, Wright F, Levine JD, Mastick J, Hammer MJ, Miaskowski C, Dunn LB (2017) Factors associated with oncology patients’ involvement in shared decision making during chemotherapy. Psychooncology 26:1972–1979. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rothman RL, Montori VM, Cherrington A, Pignone MP (2008) Perspective: the role of numeracy in health care. J Health Commun 13:583–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730802281791

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Keinki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zomorodbakhsch, B., Keinki, C., Seilacher, E. et al. Cancer Patients Numeracy and Preferences for Information Presentation—a Survey Among German Cancer Patients. J Canc Educ 35, 22–27 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-018-1435-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-018-1435-4

Keywords

Navigation