By Cheryl Lubbert, CEO of Reverba Global
In healthcare, every word matters – but the way we communicate those words, and the numbers behind them, is changing. For patients to truly understand risk and for clinicians to guide them effectively, communication itself has become a science of shared understanding.
A growing body of research is challenging one of medicine’s oldest habits: explaining risks and benefits in words alone. Phrases like “rarely risky” or “commonly seen” may sound reassuring, but for many patients, they can be dangerously vague. What does “rare” mean? 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 10? The difference can change a decision, a treatment plan, or even a life.
Two recent publications, one from the University of Oregon and another from JAMA, shine a powerful light on how we can do better.
The Problem with Skipping the Numbers
In her article When doctors skip the numbers, patients may misjudge health risks, Professor Ellen Peters at the of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication and Department of Psychology and colleagues discuss how verbal-only communication often leads patients to overestimate risks or misunderstand probabilities. Her research shows that people not only prefer numbers but also perceive them as more trustworthy, even among those with lower numeracy skills.
As Peters explained, “When you present numeric evidence, it helps correct people’s expectations. They’re much less likely to overestimate risk and more likely to take on a physician’s recommendations.”
The team offers five practical strategies that any clinician can use:
- Pair words with numbers
- Simplify the data to what’s relevant
- Provide context for what the numbers mean
- Acknowledge uncertainty
- Confirm understanding through “teach-back”
It’s a blueprint for making data human and communication concise.
The Science of Making Numbers Count
In the new JAMA Insights: How to Communicate Medical Numbers, authors Zikmund-Fisher, Thorpe, and Fagerlin go one step further, identifying evidence-based techniques that make numerical communication more effective.
They found that presenting absolute risks, for example, “this treatment reduces your risk from 15% to 8%,” is far more meaningful than relative statements like “cuts your risk in half.” They also show why consistent denominators (using per-100 or per-1,000 formats) prevent confusion, and how visual tools such as icon arrays or contextual benchmarks can make data tangible for every patient.
At its core, the paper argues that numbers, when presented clearly and with empathy, empower patients to make informed decisions grounded in evidence, not fear.
Bridging the Numeracy Divide
Both studies converge on an important understanding: health literacy and trust depend on numeracy.
Yet, as the JAMA article notes, two-thirds of patients may be navigating their health with incomplete understanding, not because they don’t care, but because the system doesn’t always communicate in ways they can grasp.
This is where scientific engagement can play a critical role. Every conversation between a patient, provider, and biopharma company is as an opportunity to build understanding through clarity and context. Whether it’s a clinical trial, a patient support program, or a digital health tool, transparency is only real when the numbers make sense.
Equipping Clinicians to Communicate with Clarity
Addressing this numeracy gap calls for a shift in how clinicians are trained and supported to communicate evidence. Even the best data loses meaning if it’s not delivered in a way that patients can understand and trust. This should start with medical education programs emphasizing communication literacy alongside clinical expertise.
Once they are in practice, HCPs need practical tools, from visual risk charts and teach-back scripts to digital aids embedded in electronic health records. We provide these tools to make evidence-based conversations part of routine care, not a bonus.
Turning Data into Trust
The future of effective scientific engagement isn’t just about more data; it’s about better translation of data.
Empowering patients starts with empowering those who communicate with them. The future of engagement depends on clinicians who are not only skilled in medicine but fluent in the language of numbers, supported by the right education, resources, and digital tools to make every conversation count.
As these studies remind us, the language of health shouldn’t be purely verbal – it should be numerical, visual, and deeply rooted in science.
