If you reply to this long (7 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
*******************************************
ABSTRACT: I copy most of the summary of the article "Helping Doctors
and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics" by Gigerenzer et al.,
who claim that statistical illiteracy is common to patients,
journalists, and physicians; and emphasize the "importance of
teaching statistical thinking and transparent representations in
primary and secondary education as well as in medical school [since]
statistical literacy is a necessary precondition for an educated
citizenship in a technological democracy."
*******************************************
Some subscribers may be interested in a recent article by Gigerenzer
et al. (2008) titled "Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of
Health Statistics."
The summary reads [bracketed by "GGGGGG. . . ."; my EMPHASIS]:
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Many doctors, patients, journalists, and politicians alike do not
understand what health statistics mean or draw wrong conclusions
without noticing. Collective statistical illiteracy refers to the
widespread inability to understand the meaning of numbers. For
instance, many citizens are unaware that higher survival rates with
cancer screening do not imply longer life, or that the statement that
mammography screening reduces the risk of dying from breast cancer by
25% in fact means that 1 less woman out of 1,000 will die of the
disease. We provide evidence that STATISTICAL ILLITERACY (a) IS
COMMON TO PATIENTS, JOURNALISTS, AND PHYSICIANS; (b) is created by
nontransparent framing of information that is sometimes an
unintentional result of lack of understanding but can also be a
result of intentional efforts to manipulate or persuade people; and
(c) can have serious consequences for health. . . . . . . .We show
that information pamphlets, Web sites, leaflets distributed to
doctors by the pharmaceutical industry, and even medical journals
often report evidence in nontransparent forms that suggest big
benefits of featured interventions and small harms . . . .[see e.g.,
Smith (2005)]. . . . Without understanding the numbers involved, the
public is susceptible to political and commercial manipulation of
their anxieties and hopes, which undermines the goals of informed
consent and shared decision making.
What can be done? WE DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING STATISTICAL
THINKING AND TRANSPARENT REPRESENTATIONS IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION AS WELL AS IN MEDICAL SCHOOL. Yet this requires
familiarizing children early on with the concept of probability and
teaching statistical literacy as the art of solving real-world
problems rather than applying formulas to toy problems about coins
and dice. A major precondition for statistical literacy is
transparent risk communication. We recommend using frequency
statements instead of single-event probabilities, absolute risks
instead of relative risks, mortality rates instead of survival rates,
and natural frequencies instead of conditional probabilities.
Psychological research on transparent visual and numerical forms of
risk communication, as well as training of physicians in their use,
is called for.
Statistical literacy is a necessary precondition for an educated
citizenship in a technological democracy. Understanding risks and
asking critical questions can also shape the emotional climate in a
society so that hopes and anxieties are no longer as easily
manipulated from outside and citizens can develop a better-informed
and more relaxed attitude toward their health.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I thank psychologist Chris Green (2008) for his TIPS [Teaching in
the Psychological Sciences
<http://www.mail-archive.com/tips%40acsun.frostburg.edu/>] post that
brought Gigerenzer et al. (2008) and Smith (2005) to my attention.
REFERENCES
Gigerenzer, G., W. Gaissmaier, E. Kurz-Milcke, L.M. Schwartz, & S.
2008. "Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics,"
Psychological Science In The Public Interest 8(2): 53-96; online at
<http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pspi_8_2_article.pdf>
(1.8MB).