Abstract
Background Statistical literacy is an important element in informing patients and planning treatments for both clinicians and policymakers. This study aim to investigate and compare the interpretation of a diagnostic test result in medical and non-medical professionals.
Methods A diagnostic test question about positive predictive value was posted on the “Stories” section of five personal Instagram accounts. The collected information included the exact calculated number, educational status (undergraduate or graduated) and field of study (dentistry, medicine, other medical, non-medical). The results were analysed using R version 3.4.4 on Microsoft Windows 10 with the Pearson χ2 test.
Results Of 121 participants, 63.6% did not provide a correct answer. The highest and the lowest correct answer ratios were seen in non-medical and dentistry groups, with 52.6% and 22.2%, respectively (P = 0.09, χ2 = 6.464, df = 3). Undergraduates showed a more favourable performance than graduates with 41.8% correct answers compared to 20.0% (P = 0.03, χ2 = 4.616, df = 1).
Conclusion The statistical interpretation of the medical professionals is lower than the non-medical professionals and graduates showed less favourable results compared to undergraduates. There is a need for more beneficial and continuative statistical education for medical professionals.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Shahid Beheshti Dental School
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data are available as the link below.