skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Health Literacy, Health Numeracy, and Trust in Doctor: Effects on Key Patient Health Outcomes
This research examines the roles of health literacy, health numeracy, and trust in doctor on: (1) patient anxiety when consulting a doctor; (2) frequency of physician consultations; and (3) patient subjective well‐being (SWB). Our sample consisted of 4,040 adults representative of the United States in terms of age, income, and education, but equally split among White/Caucasian (50%) and Black/African American (50%) respondents. We found that functional and communicative health literacy and trust in doctor have linear and curvilinear relationships with anxiety when consulting a doctor. Health numeracy had no effect. Anxiety when consulting a doctor was associated with a lower number of physician consultations and lower SWB. We observed direct linear effects of health literacy, health numeracy, and trust in doctor on frequency of physician consultations and SWB, as well as some curvilinear effects. We found a negative relationship between health numeracy and SWB. We discuss implications of these findings for health and public policy.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1636933
PAR ID:
10117656
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley-Blackwell
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Journal of Consumer Affairs
Volume:
54
Issue:
1
ISSN:
0022-0078
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 3-42
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; (, Medical Decision Making)
    null (Ed.)
    Background. Numeracy skills are important for medical decision making as lower numeracy is associated with misinterpreting statistical health risks. Math anxiety, characterized by negative emotions about numerical tasks, and lower subjective numeracy (i.e., self-assessments of numerical competence) are also associated with poor risk comprehension. Objective. To explore independent and mediated associations of math anxiety, numerical ability, and subjective numeracy with risk comprehension and to ascertain whether their associations are specific to the health domain. Methods. Objective numeracy was measured with a 14-item test. Math anxiety and subjective numeracy were assessed with self-report scales. Risk comprehension was measured with a 12-item test. In experiment 1, risk comprehension items were limited to scenarios in the health domain. In experiment 2, participants were randomly assigned to receive numerically equivalent risk comprehension items in either a health or nonhealth domain. Results. Linear regression analyses revealed that individuals with higher objective numeracy were more likely to respond correctly to the risk comprehension items, as were individuals with higher subjective numeracy. Higher math anxiety was associated with a lower likelihood of correct responding when controlling for objective numeracy but not when controlling for subjective numeracy. Mediation analyses indicated that math anxiety may undermine risk comprehension in 3 ways, including through 1) objective numeracy, 2) subjective numeracy, and 3) objective and subjective numeracy in serial, with subjective numeracy mediating the association between objective numeracy and risk comprehension. Findings did not differ by domain. Conclusions. Math anxiety, objective numeracy, and subjective numeracy are associated with risk comprehension through unique pathways. Education initiatives for improving health risk comprehension may be most effective if jointly aimed at tackling numerical ability as well as negative emotions and self-evaluations related to numeracy. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; (, Journal of Medical Internet Research)
    Background Online physician reviews are an important source of information for prospective patients. In addition, they represent an untapped resource for studying the effects of gender on the doctor-patient relationship. Understanding gender differences in online reviews is important because it may impact the value of those reviews to patients. Documenting gender differences in patient experience may also help to improve the doctor-patient relationship. This is the first large-scale study of physician reviews to extensively investigate gender bias in online reviews or offer recommendations for improvements to online review systems to correct for gender bias and aid patients in selecting a physician. Objective This study examines 154,305 reviews from across the United States for all medical specialties. Our analysis includes a qualitative and quantitative examination of review content and physician rating with regard to doctor and reviewer gender. Methods A total of 154,305 reviews were sampled from Google Place reviews. Reviewer and doctor gender were inferred from names. Reviews were coded for overall patient experience (negative or positive) by collapsing a 5-star scale and coded for general categories (process, positive/negative soft skills), which were further subdivided into themes. Computational text processing methods were employed to apply this codebook to the entire data set, rendering it tractable to quantitative methods. Specifically, we estimated binary regression models to examine relationships between physician rating, patient experience themes, physician gender, and reviewer gender). Results Female reviewers wrote 60% more reviews than men. Male reviewers were more likely to give negative reviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.19; P<.001). Reviews of female physicians were considerably more negative than those of male physicians (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.94-2.14; P<.001). Soft skills were more likely to be mentioned in the reviews written by female reviewers and about female physicians. Negative reviews of female doctors were more likely to mention candor (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.42-1.82; P<.001) and amicability (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.90; P<.001). Disrespect was associated with both female physicians (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35-1.51; P<.001) and female reviewers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.35; P<.001). Female patients were less likely to report disrespect from female doctors than expected from the base ORs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.32; P=.008), but this effect overrode only the effect for female reviewers. Conclusions This work reinforces findings in the extensive literature on gender differences and gender bias in patient-physician interaction. Its novel contribution lies in highlighting gender differences in online reviews. These reviews inform patients’ choice of doctor and thus affect both patients and physicians. The evidence of gender bias documented here suggests review sites may be improved by providing information about gender differences, controlling for gender when presenting composite ratings for physicians, and helping users write less biased reviews. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, PLOS ONE)
    Camacho-Rivera, Marlene (Ed.)
    This study explored relations between COVID-19 news source, trust in COVID-19 information source, and COVID-19 health literacy in 194 STEM-oriented adolescents and young adults from the US and the UK. Analyses suggest that adolescents use both traditional news (e.g., TV or newspapers) and social media news to acquire information about COVID-19 and have average levels of COVID-19 health literacy. Hierarchical linear regression analyses suggest that the association between traditional news media and COVID-19 health literacy depends on participants’ level of trust in their government leader. For youth in both the US and the UK who used traditional media for information about COVID-19 and who have higher trust in their respective government leader (i.e., former US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson) had lower COVID-19 health literacy. Results highlight how youth are learning about the pandemic and the importance of not only considering their information source, but also their levels of trust in their government leaders. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, Medical Decision Making)
    BackgroundHealth care interactions may require patients to share with a physician information they believe but is incorrect. While a key piece of physicians’ work is educating their patients, people’s concerns of being seen as uninformed or incompetent by physicians may lead them to think that sharing incorrect health beliefs comes with a penalty. We tested people’s perceptions of patients who share incorrect information and how these perceptions vary by the reasonableness of the belief and its centrality to the patient’s disease. DesignWe recruited 399 United States Prolific.co workers (357 retained after exclusions), 200 Prolific.co workers who reported having diabetes (139 after exclusions), and 244 primary care physicians (207 after exclusions). Participants read vignettes describing patients with type 2 diabetes sharing health beliefs that were central or peripheral to the management of diabetes. Beliefs included true and incorrect statements that were reasonable or unreasonable to believe. Participants rated how a doctor would perceive the patient, the patient’s ability to manage their disease, and the patient’s trust in doctors. ResultsParticipants rated patients who shared more unreasonable beliefs more negatively. There was an extra penalty for incorrect statements central to the patient’s diabetes management (sample 1). These results replicated for participants with type 2 diabetes (sample 2) and physician participants (sample 3). ConclusionsParticipants believed that patients who share incorrect information with their physicians will be penalized for their honesty. Physicians need to be educated on patients’ concerns so they can help patients disclose what may be most important for education. HighlightsUnderstanding how people think they will be perceived in a health care setting can help us understand what they may be wary to share with their physicians. People think that patients who share incorrect beliefs will be viewed negatively. Helping patients share incorrect beliefs can improve care. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction)
    Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) devices transmit patients' medical indicators (e.g., blood pressure) from the patient's home testing equipment to their healthcare providers, in order to monitor chronic conditions such as hypertension. AI systems have the potential to enhance access to timely medical advice based on the data that RPM devices produce. In this paper, we report on three studies investigating how the severity of users' medical condition (normal vs. high blood pressure), security risk (low vs. modest vs. high risk), and medical advice source (human doctor vs. AI) influence user perceptions of advisor trustworthiness and willingness to disclose RPM-acquired information. We found that trust mediated the relationship between the advice source and users' willingness to disclose health information: users trust doctors more than AI and are more willing to disclose their RPM-acquired health information to a more trusted advice source. However, we unexpectedly discovered that conditional on trust, users disclose RPM-acquired information more readily to AI than to doctors. We observed that the advice source did not influence perceptions of security and privacy risks. We conclude by discussing how our findings can support the design of RPM applications. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email