Numeracy, i.e. the ability to handle basic probability concepts, needed for the interpretation of risk information, is measured by the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS) [ 27].
Interpretation of risk information conveyed as relative risks, absolute risks, or other quantitative measures has been shown to be inconsistent, and at times incorrect, even by individuals with excellent numeracy skills (16).
The contradictory recommendations sometimes lead to differences in the development of risk assessment methods, often lead to differing interpretations of risk information, and occasionally result in remarkably different risk management decisions for the same chemical substance.
Previous research has highlighted the effects of presentation, wording and 'framing' of risk information on both clinicians' and patients' interpretation of numerical data and its impact on treatment choice [ 6- 11].
Patients' interpretation of verbal risk information was assessed using a 10 cm visual analogue scale.
PGen Study participants tended to be well-educated, high-earning, and White; interpretation of genetic risk information, and its impact on risk perception, may differ in groups without these qualities.
We use a synthesis of five existing analyses to illustrate how scale affects the perception and interpretation of risk as information, models, and findings are stepped down from broad scale (interior Columbia basin) to mid scale (parts of a river basins) to fine scale (watersheds).
The risk signature is not dependent on pathology interpretation and provides risk information that is independent of risk stratification resulting from standard clinical models.
10 Nevertheless, the impact of these secondary preventative measures might vary with socioeconomic deprivation in terms of access to, and timing of, antenatal detection services through to the provision of information, the interpretation of risk, and the consequent decision regarding continuation or termination of a pregnancy.
They give "data" (industry information, results of studies, and their own interpretation of risk and benefit studies) to decision makers.
Interpretation of risk was more varied in the presence of concurrent bradycardia, but not tachycardia.
