45 Relationship Between Degree of Cognitive Impairment and Performance on Measures of Health Numeracy and Literacy in a Memory Disorders Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Understanding healthcare information is an important aspect in managing one’s own needs and navigating a complex healthcare system. Health numeracy and literacy reflect the ability to understand and apply information conveyed numerically (i.e., graphs, statistics, proportions, etc.) and written/verbally (i.e., treatment instructions, appointments, diagnostic results) to communicate with healthcare providers, understand one’s medical condition(s) and treatment plan, and participate in informed medical decision-making. Cognitive impairment has been shown to impact one’s ability to understand complex medical information. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the degree of cognitive impairment and one’s ability to perform on measures of health numeracy and literacy. Participants and Methods: This cross-sectional study included data from 38 adult clinical patients referred for neuropsychological evaluation for primary memory complaints at an urban, public Midwestern academic medical center. All patients were administered a standardized neurocognitive battery that included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), as well as measures of both health numeracy (Numeracy Understanding of Medicine Instrument-Short Version [NUMI-SF]) and health literacy (Short Assessment of Health Literacy-English [SAHL-E]). The sample was 58% female and 60% Black/40% White. Mean age was 65 (SD=9.4) and mean education was 14.4 years (SD=2.5). The sample was further split into three groups based on cognitive diagnosis determined by comprehensive neuropsychological assessment (i.e., No Diagnosis [34%]; Mild Cognitive Impairment [MCI; 29%]; Dementia [34%]).Groups were well matched and did not statistically differ in premorbid intellectual functioning (F=1.96, p=.157; No Diagnosis, M=100, SD=7.92; MCI, M=99, SD=8.87; Dementia, M=94, SD=7.72) ANOVAs were conducted to evaluate differences between clinical groups on the MoCA, NUMI-SF, and SAHL-E. Multiple regressions were then conducted to determine the association of MoCA scores with NUMI-SF and SAHL-E performance. Results: As expected, the Dementia group performed significantly below both the No Diagnosis and MCI groups on the MoCA (F=19.92, p<.001) with a large effect (ηp2=.540). Significant differences were also found on the NUM-SF (F=5.90, p>.05) and on the SAHL-E (F=6.20, p>.05) with large effects (ηp2=.258 and ηp2=.267, respectively). Regression found that MoCA performance did not predict performance on the NUMI-SF and SAHL-E in the No Diagnosis group (F=2.30, p=.809) or the MCI group (F=1.31, p=.321). Conversely, the MoCA significantly predicted performance on the NUMI-SF and SAHL-E for the Dementia (F=15.59, p=.001) group. Conclusions: Degree of cognitive impairment is associated with understanding of health numeracy and literacy information, with patients diagnosed with dementia performing most poorly on these measures. Patients with normal cognitive functioning demonstrated a significantly better understanding of health numeracy and health literacy. This study supports the notion that as cognitive functioning diminishes, incremental support is necessary for patients to understand medical information pertaining to their continued care and medical decision-making, particularly as it relates to both numerical and written information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".