Published on in Vol 16, No 8 (2014): August

Numeracy and Literacy Independently Predict Patients’ Ability to Identify Out-of-Range Test Results

Numeracy and Literacy Independently Predict Patients’ Ability to Identify Out-of-Range Test Results

Numeracy and Literacy Independently Predict Patients’ Ability to Identify Out-of-Range Test Results

Journals

  1. Zikmund-Fisher B, Scherer A, Witteman H, Solomon J, Exe N, Fagerlin A. Effect of Harm Anchors in Visual Displays of Test Results on Patient Perceptions of Urgency About Near-Normal Values: Experimental Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2018;20(3):e98 View
  2. Reading Turchioe M, Grossman L, Myers A, Baik D, Goyal P, Masterson Creber R. Visual analogies, not graphs, increase patients' comprehension of changes in their health status. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2020;27(5):677 View
  3. Grossman L, Masterson Creber R, Benda N, Wright D, Vawdrey D, Ancker J. Interventions to increase patient portal use in vulnerable populations: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2019;26(8-9):855 View
  4. Grossman L, Choi S, Collins S, Dykes P, O’Leary K, Rizer M, Strong P, Yen P, Vawdrey D. Implementation of acute care patient portals: recommendations on utility and use from six early adopters. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2018;25(4):370 View
  5. Zikmund-Fisher B, Solomon J, Scherer A, Exe N, Tarini B, Fagerlin A, Witteman H. Primary Care Providers’ Preferences and Concerns Regarding Specific Visual Displays for Returning Hemoglobin A1c Test Results to Patients. Medical Decision Making 2019;39(7):796 View
  6. Tao D, Yuan J, Qu X. Effects of presentation formats on consumers’ performance and perceptions in the use of personal health records among older and young adults. Patient Education and Counseling 2019;102(3):578 View
  7. Tao D, Yuan J, Qu X. Presenting self-monitoring test results for consumers: the effects of graphical formats and age. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2018;25(8):1036 View
  8. Perrotta P, Karcher D. Validating Laboratory Results in Electronic Health Records: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 2016;140(9):926 View
  9. Kerr D, Axelrod C, Hoppe C, Klonoff D. Diabetes and technology in 2030: a utopian or dystopian future?. Diabetic Medicine 2018;35(4):498 View
  10. Scherer A, Witteman H, Solomon J, Exe N, Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B. Improving the Understanding of Test Results by Substituting (Not Adding) Goal Ranges: Web-Based Between-Subjects Experiment. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2018;20(10):e11027 View
  11. Lockwood M, Dunn-Lopez K, Pauls H, Burke L, Shah S, Saunders M. If you build it, they may not come: modifiable barriers to patient portal use among pre- and post-kidney transplant patients. JAMIA Open 2018;1(2):255 View
  12. Fraccaro P, Vigo M, Balatsoukas P, Buchan I, Peek N, van der Veer S. The influence of patient portals on users’ decision making is insufficiently investigated: A systematic methodological review. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2018;111:100 View
  13. Sveshnikova A, Panteleev M, Dreval A, Shestakova T, Medvedev O, Dreval O. Theoretical evaluation of the parameters of glucose metabolism on the basis of continuous glycemia monitoring data using mathematical modeling. Biophysics 2017;62(5):842 View
  14. Gopalan A, Kellom K, McDonough K, Schapira M. Exploring how patients understand and assess their diabetes control. BMC Endocrine Disorders 2018;18(1) View
  15. Neter E, Brainin E. Association Between Health Literacy, eHealth Literacy, and Health Outcomes Among Patients With Long-Term Conditions. European Psychologist 2019;24(1):68 View
  16. Lyles C, Schillinger D, Sarkar U. Connecting the Dots: Health Information Technology Expansion and Health Disparities. PLOS Medicine 2015;12(7):e1001852 View
  17. Wilkie P. Patient views on understanding laboratory results. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) 2019;57(3):371 View
  18. Witteman H. Capsule Commentary on Shultz et al., Patient Preferences for Test Result Notification. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015;30(11):1698 View
  19. Struikman B, Bol N, Goedhart A, van Weert J, Talboom-Kamp E, van Delft S, Brabers A, van Dijk L. Features of a Patient Portal for Blood Test Results and Patient Health Engagement: Web-Based Pre-Post Experiment. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2020;22(7):e15798 View
  20. Shaffer V, Wegier P, Valentine K, Belden J, Canfield S, Patil S, Popescu M, Steege L, Jain A, Koopman R. Patient Judgments About Hypertension Control: The Role of Variability, Trends, and Outliers in Visualized Blood Pressure Data. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2019;21(3):e11366 View
  21. Fox B, Felkey B. Tech Trends We Are Watching in 2015: Health Information Technology Developments. Hospital Pharmacy 2015;50(1):084 View
  22. Tieu L, Sarkar U, Schillinger D, Ralston J, Ratanawongsa N, Pasick R, Lyles C. Barriers and Facilitators to Online Portal Use Among Patients and Caregivers in a Safety Net Health Care System: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2015;17(12):e275 View
  23. Giardina T, Baldwin J, Nystrom D, Sittig D, Singh H. Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2018;25(4):440 View
  24. Fox B, Felkey B. Tech Trends We Are Watching in 2015: Health Information Technology Developments. Hospital Pharmacy 2015;50(1):084 View
  25. Gopalan A, Suttner L, Troxel A, McDonough K, Schapira M. Testing patient-informed approaches for visually depicting the hemoglobin A1c value to patients with poorly controlled diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research 2020;20(1) View
  26. Zikmund-Fisher B, Scherer A, Witteman H, Solomon J, Exe N, Tarini B, Fagerlin A. Graphics help patients distinguish between urgent and non-urgent deviations in laboratory test results. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2017;24(3):520 View
  27. Bellini S, Shields J, Eggett D. Validating an Evaluation Tool for Nutrition Education Handouts in the Clinical Setting. Topics in Clinical Nutrition 2018;33(4):311 View
  28. Fraccaro P, Vigo M, Balatsoukas P, van der Veer S, Hassan L, Williams R, Wood G, Sinha S, Buchan I, Peek N. Presentation of laboratory test results in patient portals: influence of interface design on risk interpretation and visual search behaviour. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2018;18(1) View
  29. Kiernan F, Rahman F. Measuring surgical performance: A risky game?. The Surgeon 2015;13(4):213 View
  30. Reyna V, Brust‐Renck P. How representations of number and numeracy predict decision paradoxes: A fuzzy‐trace theory approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2020;33(5):606 View
  31. Grady M, Katz L, Cameron H, Levy B. A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Novel Color Range Indicator in Multiple Blood Glucose Meters Demonstrates Improved Glucose Range Interpretation and Awareness in Subjects With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2016;10(6):1324 View
  32. Delanoë A, Lépine J, Turcotte S, Leiva Portocarrero M, Robitaille H, Giguère A, Wilson B, Witteman H, Lévesque I, Guillaumie L, Légaré F. Role of Psychosocial Factors and Health Literacy in Pregnant Women’s Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: A Theory-Based Web Survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2016;18(10):e283 View
  33. Kruse C, Bolton K, Freriks G. The Effect of Patient Portals on Quality Outcomes and Its Implications to Meaningful Use: A Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2015;17(2):e44 View
  34. Kaziunas E, Hanauer D, Ackerman M, Choi S. Identifying unmet informational needs in the inpatient setting to increase patient and caregiver engagement in the context of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2016;23(1):94 View
  35. Sheon A, Bolen S, Callahan B, Shick S, Perzynski A. Addressing Disparities in Diabetes Management Through Novel Approaches to Encourage Technology Adoption and Use. JMIR Diabetes 2017;2(2):e16 View
  36. Gartrell K, Trinkoff A, Storr C, Wilson M, Gurses A. Testing the Electronic Personal Health Record Acceptance Model by Nurses for Managing Their Own Health. Applied Clinical Informatics 2015;06(02):224 View
  37. Snyder J. Top of Scope Practice. Critical Values 2016;9(1):28 View
  38. O’Kane M. Direct patient access to test results: implications for the laboratory. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine 2015;52(5):525 View
  39. Wilkins C, Mapes B, Jerome R, Villalta-Gil V, Pulley J, Harris P. Understanding What Information Is Valued By Research Participants, And Why. Health Affairs 2019;38(3):399 View
  40. Delanoë A, Lépine J, Leiva Portocarrero M, Robitaille H, Turcotte S, Lévesque I, Wilson B, Giguère A, Légaré F. Health literacy in pregnant women facing prenatal screening may explain their intention to use a patient decision aid: a short report. BMC Research Notes 2016;9(1) View
  41. Watson I, Wilkie P, Hannan A, Beastall G. Role of laboratory medicine in collaborative healthcare. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) 2018;57(1):134 View
  42. Bar-Lev S, Beimel D. Numbers, graphs and words – do we really understand the lab test results accessible via the patient portals?. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 2020;9(1) View
  43. Zhang Z, Citardi D, Xing A, Luo X, Lu Y, He Z. Patient Challenges and Needs in Comprehending Laboratory Test Results: Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2020;22(12):e18725 View
  44. Neter E, Brainin E, Baron-Epel O. Group differences in health literacy are ameliorated in ehealth literacy. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine 2021;9(1):480 View
  45. Scalia P, Schubbe D, Lu E, Durand M, Frascara J, Noel G, O’Malley A, Elwyn G, von Wagner C. Comparing the impact of an icon array versus a bar graph on preference and understanding of risk information: Results from an online, randomized study. PLOS ONE 2021;16(7):e0253644 View

Books/Policy Documents

  1. Tao D, Yuan J, Qu X, Wang T, Chen X. Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. View
  2. Durst A, Mills R. Genetic Counseling Practice. View
  3. Lu Y, Zhang Z, Min K, Luo X, He Z. Diversity, Divergence, Dialogue. View