Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
An Evaluation of Health Numeracy among Radiation Therapists and Dosimetrists.
Peters, Gabrielle W; Kelly, Jacqueline R; Beckta, Jason M; White, Marney; Marks, Lawrence B; Ford, Eric; Evans, Suzanne B.
Afiliación
  • Peters GW; Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
  • Kelly JR; Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
  • Beckta JM; Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
  • White M; School of Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
  • Marks LB; Division of Health Care Engineering and Lineberger Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
  • Ford E; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
  • Evans SB; Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Adv Radiat Oncol ; 6(3): 100609, 2021.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34027232
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Medical errors in radiation oncology sometimes involve tasks reliant on practitioners' grasp of numeracy. Numeracy has been shown to be suboptimal across various health care professionals. Herein, we assess health numeracy among American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT) members. METHODS AND MATERIALS The Numeracy Understanding for Medicine instrument (NUMi), an instrument to measure numeracy in the general population, was adapted to oncology for this study and distributed to ASRT members (n = 14,228) in 2017. Per NUMi scoring, health numeracy scores were categorized as low (0-7), low average (8-12), high average (13-17), or high (18-20). The impact of cGy versus Gy on numeracy performance was investigated. Spearman's rho and a Wilcox-Mann-Whitney test were used for comparisons between the different groups.

RESULTS:

A total of 662 eligible participants completed the instrument and identified as radiation oncology professionals. In the cGy and Gy NUMi scores, approximately 2% of respondents scored low-average, approximately 40% scored high-average, and approximately 58% scored high, with a median score of 18.0. Although the optimum NUMi score for ASRT members is unknown, one might expect our cohort to have numeracy skills at least as high as college freshmen. Roughly one-sixth of our study group scored at or below the average score of college freshmen (NUMi = 15). In the subset analysis of NUMi questions pertaining to radiation dose unit (cGy vs Gy), respondents performed better with cGy (mean score 2.94; range, 2-3) versus Gy (mean 2.91; range, 0-3; P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this study of limited sample size, overall numeracy is quite good compared with the general population. However, the range of scores is wide, and some respondents have lower scores that may be concerning, suggesting that numeracy may be an issue that requires improvement for a subset of the studied cohort. Performance was superior with the unit cGy; thus, the adoption of cGy as the standard unit is reasonable.

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Adv Radiat Oncol Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Adv Radiat Oncol Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article