Show simple item record

Health numeracy: Perspectives about using numbers in health management from African American patients receiving dialysis

dc.contributor.authorWright Nunes, Julie A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorOsborn, Chandra Y.en_US
dc.contributor.authorIkizler, T. Alpen_US
dc.contributor.authorCavanaugh, Kerri L.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-02T15:12:46Z
dc.date.available2016-05-10T20:26:28Zen
dc.date.issued2015-04en_US
dc.identifier.citationWright Nunes, Julie A.; Osborn, Chandra Y.; Ikizler, T. Alp; Cavanaugh, Kerri L. (2015). "Health numeracy: Perspectives about using numbers in health management from African American patients receiving dialysis." Hemodialysis International (2): 287-295.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1492-7535en_US
dc.identifier.issn1542-4758en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/110890
dc.description.abstractHealth numeracy is linked to important clinical outcomes. Kidney disease management relies heavily on patient numeracy skills across the continuum of kidney disease care. Little data are available eliciting stakeholder perspectives from patients receiving dialysis about the construct of health numeracy. Using focus groups, we asked patients receiving hemodialysis open‐ended questions to identify facilitators and barriers to their understanding, interpretation, and application of numeric information in kidney care. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis. Twelve patients participated with a mean (standard deviation) age of 56 (12) years. All were African American, 50% were women, and 83% had an annual income <$20,000/year. Although patients felt numbers were critical to every aspect in life, they noted several barriers to understanding, interpreting and applying quantitative information specifically to manage their health. Low patient self‐efficacy related to health numeracy and limited patient–provider communication about quantitatively based feedback, were emphasized as key barriers. Through focus groups of key patient stakeholders we identified important modifiable barriers to effective kidney care. Additional research is needed to develop tools that support numeracy‐sensitive education and communication interventions in dialysis.en_US
dc.publisherNational Academies Press.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherdisparitiesen_US
dc.subject.otherkidney diseaseen_US
dc.subject.otherdialysisen_US
dc.subject.otherquantitative health literacyen_US
dc.subject.otherHealth numeracyen_US
dc.titleHealth numeracy: Perspectives about using numbers in health management from African American patients receiving dialysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110890/1/hdi12239.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/hdi.12239en_US
dc.identifier.sourceHemodialysis Internationalen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCresci MK, Jarosz PA. Bridging the digital divide for urban seniors: Community partnership. Geriatr Nurs. 2010; 31: 455 – 463.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago (IL), Aldine De Gruyther. 1967.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoetz JP, LeCompte MD. Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropol Educ Q. 1981; 12: 51 – 79.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStewart D, Shamdasani P, Rook D. Focus Groups Theory and Practice, Vol. 20, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications, Incorporated. 2007.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGroome PA, Hutchinson TA, Tousignant P. Content of a decision analysis for treatment choice in end‐stage renal disease: Who should be consulted? Med Decis Making. 1994; 14: 91 – 97.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZikmund‐Fisher BJ, Witteman HO, Dickson M, et al. Blocks, ovals, or people? Icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs. Med Decis Making. 2014; 34: 443 – 453.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceApter AJ, Paasche‐Orlow MK, Remillard JT, et al. Numeracy and communication with patients: They are counting on us. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23: 2117 – 2124.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchapira MM, Fletcher KE, Gilligan MA, et al. A framework for health numeracy: How patients use quantitative skills in health care. J Health Commun. 2008; 13: 501 – 517.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLevy H, Ubel PA, Dillard AJ, Weir DR, Fagerlin A. Health numeracy: The importance of domain in assessing numeracy. Med Decis Making. 2014; 34: 107 – 115.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHuizinga MM, Carlisle AJ, Cavanaugh KL, et al. Literacy, numeracy, and portion‐size estimation skills. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 36: 324 – 328.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNorris K, Nissenson AR. Race, gender, and socioeconomic disparities in CKD in the United States. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008; 19: 1261 – 1270.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMehrotra R, Kermah D, Fried L, Adler S, Norris K. Racial differences in mortality among those with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008; 19: 1403 – 1410.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHays J, Hunt JR, Hubbell FA, et al. The Women's Health Initiative recruitment methods and results. Ann Epidemiol. 2003; 13 ( 9 Suppl ): S18 – S77.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKennedy TJ, Lingard LA. Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Med Educ. 2006; 40: 101 – 108.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchatell D, Wise M, Klicko K, Becker BN. In‐center hemodialysis patients' use of the internet in the United States: A national survey. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006; 48: 285 – 291.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSarkar U, Karter AJ, Liu JY, et al. Social disparities in internet patient portal use in diabetes: Evidence that the digital divide extends beyond access. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011; 18: 318 – 321.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChiasson MA, Hirshfield S, Rietmeijer C. HIV prevention and care in the digital age. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010; 55 ( Suppl 2 ): S94 – S97.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSpring B, Schneider K, McFadden HG, et al. Multiple behavior changes in diet and activity: A randomized controlled trial using mobile technology. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172: 789 – 796.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCurtin RB, Walters BA, Schatell D, Pennell P, Wise M, Klicko K. Self‐efficacy and self‐management behaviors in patients with chronic kidney disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2008; 15: 191 – 205.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCurtin RB, Sitter DC, Schatell D, Chewning BA. Self‐management, knowledge, and functioning and well‐being of patients on hemodialysis. Nephrol Nurs J. 2004; 31: 378 – 386, 396; quiz 387.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHuffman M. Health coaching: A new and exciting technique to enhance patient self‐management and improve outcomes. Home Healthc Nurse. 2007; 25: 271 – 274, quiz 275–276.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOlsen JM, Nesbitt BJ. Health coaching to improve healthy lifestyle behaviors: An integrative review. Am J Health Promot. 2010; 25: e1 – e12.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaker DW. Reading between the lines: Deciphering the connections between literacy and health. J Gen Intern Med. 1999; 14: 315 – 317.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInstitute of Medicine. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington (DC), National Academies Press. 2004.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDewalt D, Berkman N, Sheridan S, Lohr K, Pignone M. Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19: 1228 – 1239.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGolbeck AL, Ahlers‐Schmidt CR, Paschal AM, Dismuke SE. A definition and operational framework for health numeracy. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 29: 375 – 376.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbdel‐Kader K, Dew MA, Bhatnagar M, et al. Numeracy skills in CKD: Correlates and outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010; 5: 1566 – 1573.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndo H, Cousins R, Young C. Achieving saturation in thematic analysis: Development and refinement of a codebook 1, 2, 3. Compr Psychol. 2014; 3: p. 7. Article 4.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.